Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mineral Resources, Cornwall

Mr. Bessell: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will institute a survey of the mineral resources in Cornwall in order to ensure that any plans for the development of the region take proper account of the commercial possibilities of reopening closed mines.

The Joint Under—Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): The consultants who have been commissioned by the Joint Committee for the Economy of the South—West, with financial support from the Government, to study the development of the South—West are looking into mineral prospects in Cornwall.

Mr. Bessell: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him if this matter might be treated with some urgency because a number of independent investigators are interested in the mineral possibilities of the county and because it would undoubtedly be in the interests of the South—West generally that a survey should be completed as soon as possible so that British interests might have first place over foreign interests, which at the moment are receiving quite a lot of attention?

Mr. Foley: The report of the survey is expected in February and will be acted upon.

Regional Planning Boards

Mr. Snow: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will embody, in the responsibilities of the Economic Planning Board covering the West Midlands, full recognition of the population and industrial undertakings incorporated in the existing Agreement on Overspill between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Birmingham, and the county of Stafford.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) what progress has been made by the interdepartmental group studying the economic needs of Yorkshire; and when he will be in a position to publish conclusions for the East and West Ridings and for South Yorkshire;
(2) what plans he has for regional planning in the South Yorkshire area; whether he has considered Sheffield as the centre of such a region; whether he has had a report from the inter—departmental study group on this aspect of regional planning; and by what date further evidence should be sent from Sheffield.

Mr. Woof: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the regional planning boards will be set up; and what areas they will cover.

Mr. Prior: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what representation of agricultural interests he intends to include on regional planning boards.

Mr. Alldritt: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, having regard to the special problems in the Merseyside conurbation, he will set up a separate development board for the area.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how far he has proceeded with the designation and delimitation of a regional planning area which will include the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State


for Economic Affairs when he will announce his plans for regional development; and if he will give an assurance that the main appointments will be made irrespective of local authority membership or political connections and from men and women free from controversial loyalties.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the setting up of advisory regional councils and regional planning boards.

Mr. Albert Roberts: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he will make a statement on the proposed region affecting Yorkshire.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I must ask the hon. Members to await the comprehensive statement which I hope to make next week on the structure and functions of the regional planning boards and councils and the areas they will cover.

Mr. Snow: While recognising the timetable which my right hon. Friend has set himself on this matter, may I ask him whether he is aware that my reason for putting down the Question was that my experience in Staffordshire during the last few years has been that whereas the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry concerned in this agreement, was fully aware of its provisions, other Ministries, such as Education, the Post Office and Transport seemed to be singularly unaware of them, and that trouble has been caused by the failure to provide new industry, which was implicit in the agreement, with resulting problems to the population and their work?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, I will keep that in mind between now and next week.

Mr. Osborn: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable feeling in the Sheffield area about the provision of separate regions based on Sheffield? I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is seeing a delegation from that city, but, in answer to my Question, will he answer the specific aspect of what evidence he has had from Sheffield so far? In Question No. 4 I ask what infor-

mation he has prepared on the East and West Ridings and of South Yorkshire and the regional aspects of them? Will he publish that information in the form of a White Paper before he makes a positive statement?

Mr. Brown: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my statement next week, but if he has any information that he would like me to have, I should be very happy to have it.

Mr. Alldritt: Will the right hon, Gentleman take steps to obtain copies of the report prepared by the planning department of Liverpool so that he may appreciate our special problems before taking a final decision in the matter?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been up there many times recently, and I have that well in mind.

Mr. Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the proposed region in the Yorkshire and wider area will be wide enough to be a true region and not a small urban area to meet the needs of one city?

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his help, but we had better wait for next week.

Dame Irene Ward: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept my view that in order to obtain political balance the chairman of any regional board should be an independent individual? Would he also give an assurance, as far as Newcastle-upon—Tyne is concerned, that no appointment has already been made?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady may be quite certain that any appointment which I make will be seen to be obviously the right one to make.

Mr. Elliott: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that in relation to regional planning, a great deal of co-ordination has been done in north—east England? Will he also accept that there is a great deal of concern about the possibility of apparently unnecessary new bodies undermining democratically-elected local government?

Mr. Brown: As to the second point in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, there is no reason at all for fear. As to his first point—yes, I do


know this. One of the most distinguished civil servants helping me in my new Department had a lot to do with it.

Mr. Binns: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members representing Yorkshire constituencies consider the question asked by the hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. J. H. Osborn) to be a piece of downright impertinence?

Mr. Speaker: Order. From no conceivable point of view is that a matter for which the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has responsibility.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: While I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) that Birmingham firms desiring to settle in the designated areas of Staffordshire should be allowed to do so, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman also to bear in mind that it is equally important that Birmingham firms desiring to remain in Birmingham should be allowed to expand properly in order to maintain their competitive efficiency?

Mr. Brown: Obviously, one of the difficult decisions one has to make is that of trying to secure proper regional balance and proper use of the country's resources, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Tilney: Considering the cheapness of office accommodation on Merseyside compared with that in London and the South-East, would the First Secretary consider further moves of Government Departments to Merseyside, and would he also try to get private enterprise to do the same thing?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member must be aware that one of the very first things we did on taking office was to try to stop this over-concentration of office development in the London and South-East Region. I have the hon. Member's other point well in mind.

Mr. Dempsey: In view of the legacy of unemployment, depopulation and economic decline in Scotland left by the Tory Party, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Scottish plan will in no way be held up by delays in other parts of the country, and that full regard will be had to the need for galvanising

economic and social activity so as to improve the lot of the Scottish people?

Mr. Brown: I have that matter in mind, but I believe that my hon. Friend has a Question down for answer a little later today, so perhaps we can deal with it then.

Mr. du Cann: I am sure that the First Secretary of State is aware of the very great interest there naturally is in all parts of the House and in the country in the subject of regional development. Will he, therefore, ensure that his statement, to which we shall look forward next week, is as comprehensive as possible? And will he indicate to us now that it will cover the whole structure of regional development, so that we can the better appraise the Government's intentions and, at the same time, perhaps some of the anxieties to which my hon. Friends have correctly referred may be relieved?

Mr. Brown: I do not know whether all the anxieties of the party opposite will ever be relieved, but the statement will be as comprehensive as I can possibly make it.

Price Review Body

Mr. Fisher: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the prices of goods and services provided by State-owned enterprises will be included among those which may be referred to the Price Review Body for consumer protection.

Mr. George Brown: I have nothing to add to the reply given by the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on 26th November.

Mr. Fisher: If the intention is to attack price rises at the roots—as, I believe, the Labour Party has promised—would the Minister agree that the roots are very often the publicly-owned industries? If so, will the probable rise in the price of postage stamps, and season tickets and cheap day return tickets on the railways be included in the scrutiny of the Price Review Body? If not, why not?

Mr. Brown: I think that it would be difficult, in principle, to exclude any


kind of price from review, but before we go further into this we shall have to take our present talks a little further.

Mr. Bessell: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether the proposed price review body will consider means of equalising the retail price of coal throughout the country.

Mr. Foley: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on 26th November, we are not yet in a position to announce the precise scope and functions of the machinery to be devised for reviewing prices. We intend to discuss these matters with representatives of industry before taking decisions.

Mr. Bessell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not my Question No. 19?

Mr. Speaker: I may be getting rather short-sighted but it appears to me to be No. 18 on my Order Paper. There is no doubt that it is the hon. Gentleman's Question and the only one thereabouts on the Paper.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State bear in mind that it is most important that the commanding heights of the economy do not get any higher than they are at the moment?

Mr. Foley: "Commanding" is the operative word.

Inflation

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce the risk of inflation; if he will define the meaning of the term inflation in the context of his reply; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Foley: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget statement on 11th November that in framing his proposals he had taken account of the need to prevent the pressure of demand from becoming excessive At the same time, we attach the greatest importance to the early achievement of an effective policy for incomes and prices. The hon. Gentleman will find an admirable exposition

of the two main kinds of inflation in a report, "The Problem of Rising Prices", published by the O.E.C.D. in 1961.

Sir Richard Glyn: Is the Minister aware that several of the Chancellor's recent measures are inflationary, by any definition of the term, and calculated to cause hardship to that very large proportion of our people who live on fixed incomes or who earn comparatively low wages, like many of my constituents in North Dorset, whose incomes are, in fact, lower than the relevant figures authorised by the National Assistance Board? Will he agree that his right hon. Friend will not be able to control inflation until he makes up his mind what it means, and will he look at this again as a matter of urgency, in the interests of the whole nation and, particularly, in the interests of the less fortunate members of it?

Mr. Foley: Hon. Members, certainly those on this side, are deeply concerned with the problems of poverty in many parts of the country and with the low earnings of many workers. This is a matter of deep concern and, as distinct from the previous Administration, we intend to deal with it, in the first instance, through our regional plans, co-ordinated with a national plan. Secondly, we have the will and urgent intent to do something about these problems—

Dame Irene Ward: How?

Mr. Foley: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already stated that the increase in the duty on oil and petrol is likely to raise the retail price index figure by no more than one—fifth of a point immediately. Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds about the National Insurance contributions. If they want an increase in pensions the increase must be paid for. If they agree, they should say so. The import surcharge was necessary because of the serious balance of payments position that we inherited from the Tory Administration.

Scotland

Mr. Dempsey: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what machinery he has set up in his Department to coordinate the Scottish Regional Plan with other regional plans for economic development.

Mr. George Brown: Representatives of the Scottish Planning Board will take part in inter—departmental discussions under the chairmanship of this Department, which is responsible for co-ordinating regional plans. In addition, a senior officer from this Department will attend the meetings of the Scottish Planning Board.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the zeal, initiative and energy that he has applied to this very great problem is very much appreciated by the people of Scotland? Will he assure us that no stone will be left unturned and no delays allowed in the effort to introduce the remedial measures that are so necessary for Scotland's economy?

Mr. Brown: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. The relations and working between myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and his Department and ours, are close and vigorous, and we are both very concerned to improve the situation.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the First Secretary aware that the people of Scotland do not consider that a Scottish Planning Board with no executive powers is a very good exchange for a 7 per cent. Bank Rate and increased taxes?

Mr. Brown: My impression of the General Election was that, whatever happened anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the people of Scotland made quite clear what they wanted.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Scottish Development Group has been doing excellent work in Scotland, and can he assure us that the result of that work, and of the work being done at present, will not be lost in the new organisation?

Mr. Brown: Quite the contrary.

Growth Rate

Mr. Fisher: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to reach the National Economic Development Council's target of 4 per cent. growth rate per annum.

Mr. George Brown: Our intention is to reach an annual rate of growth of 4 per cent. as soon as possible and this will be the objective of the Government's new plan. But the economy is not growing at 4 per cent. at present.

Mr. Fisher: Is it not true that the Labour Party's election target for the growth rate apparently exceeded our own 4 per cent. target and has had to be corrected? Is it not also the case that it was supposed to cover the social policy programme of the party opposite without increased taxation? Why then, within a month of the election, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed a rise in standard rate, in petrol tax and in insurance contributions—exactly as was predicted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)?

Mr. Brown: Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has got the thing exactly the wrong way round. The fact is, as we have discovered, that the target of the previous Administration far exceeded their performance and that the promises of the previous Administration far exceeded both their target and performance.

Mr. Duffy: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the current reports that the rate of economic growth in the last nine months of the late Government was running at only half of the target?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can only be asked to confirm reports for which he is responsible, otherwise the Question is out of order.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman define more exactly the words "as soon as possible"? When is it to be?

Mr. Brown: As soon as we can get there—and that is a very great deal quicker than the previous Administration.

Mr. William Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the N.E.D.C. will work better now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a member?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman takes steps to discover what happened yesterday, he will find that all members of the N.E.D.C. felt that we are moving forward very well indeed.

Mr. W. Baxter: What organisations does my right hon. Friend seek to establish in order to get the markets that a 4 per cent. growth rate will justify? Unless we get markets for our goods, irrespective of how much we produce, a 4 per cent. growth rate will not help all that much.

Mr. Brown: That aspect has been very much one of our major preoccupations in the last seven weeks and we are very busy establishing arrangements to get the export markets which, unhappily, our predecessors failed to do.

Mr. du Cann: Are we now to assume that the Labour Government have abandoned the programme for growth which they recklessly promised the electorate in the last few months?

Mr. Brown: Not only is the right hon. Gentleman not to assume that but he might also consider whether it would not fit the party opposite's past failure to start giving some help instead of just "knocking".

Mobility of Labour

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is aware that greater mobility of labour must be achieved if regional development is to be successful; and what steps he is taking to encourage such mobility.

Mr. George Brown: Yes, Sir. This is vital for greater efficiency generally in the use of labour which is fundamental to growth of the economy. The Government are taking steps to improve the financial provision for redundant workers and expansion of facilities for retraining is under way.

Mr. Taylor: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that two of the greatest deterrents to the mobility of labour, particularly of key workers and executives, are the non-transferability of pension rights and the high cost of house purchase? Will he consult his right hon. Friends concerned to secure early legislation for the transfer of pension rights and also consult the legal profession to see whether house purchase can be simplified?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. We were glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support in

the election campaign for that part of our manifesto.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last Administration achieved great mobility of labour by shifting thousands of workers from Scotland to the South-East?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. One of the objectives of national and regional planning is to see that not only is that situation prevented from continuing but that there is a move in another direction.

The Earl of Dalkeith: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that the Government have dropped their hag—ridden ideas of direction of industry?

Mr. Brown: The Government never had these hag-ridden ideas. All the hag-riding is on the benches opposite.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUCTION (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) ACT

Mr. Abse: asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions have taken place under the Auction (Bidding Agreements) Act during the last 10 years; whether he is aware that rings have been operating for some years in many parts of the country, including South Wales, in defiance of the provisions of the Act; and whether he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): There have been no prosecutions under the Auction (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927, during the last 10 years. I have seen newspaper reports containing allegations of offences against the Act. Police enquiries are in progress in one case.
If my hon. Friend will let me have any evidence in his possession which suggests that offences have been committed against this Act, I will, of course, see that it is immediately considered.

Mr. Abse: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply which, whilst indicating the paucity of numbers of prosecutions under the Act, also indicates clearly that the Act is not regarded as otiose. Is he aware that, in South Wales, a ring has been lawlessly operating for years—clearly, until recently, with the acquiescence of the British Antique Dealers' Association—and has caused great distress to beneficiaries of estates,


including widows, as a consequence of the cheating manner in which it is purchasing antiques? Will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate, in order to assist any police inquiries, whether he considers that it would be possible to move under the law of conspiracy, since it may be much easier for the police to act under that law rather than under statute law?

The Attorney-General: If my hon. Friend will let me have the information at his disposal immediate steps will be taken by the police to investigate the matters complained of. The nature and form of the charge would have to be considered in the light of the evidence. The real difficulty in such cases is that, normally, the only witnesses are the offenders themselves and, generally speaking, they do not talk.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Peking (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his visit to the British Industrial Fair in Peking on 2nd November; and if he will detail the orders for British goods, and particularly Scottish goods, which will follow from the visit.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Redhead): I refer my hon. Friend to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave in the House on 12th November to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Since that time I have heard of a certain number of contracts concluded and negotiations for others are understood to be in progress. I have not yet seen any reports of contracts concluded by Scottish firms.

Mr. Hughes: While expressing appreciation of the enterprise of the President of the Board of Trade in undertaking this long and novel trip to develop new markets for British enterprise, may I ask my hon. Friend to particularise what goods the Chinese want that Scotland can supply and what orders are likely to emerge from the trip?

Mr. Redhead: I am afraid that I cannot give itemised information in reply to my hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question, but very few Scottish firms applied for places at the exhibition.

Had it been otherwise, perhaps he would have been better informed.

Mr. du Cann: Can the hon. Gentleman give the assurance that the whole House would, I am sure, wish to have—that opportunities for increased trade with China, which many of us believe to be very great, will be prosecuted by the Government in association with private firms with vigour following plans laid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)?

Mr. Redhead: Certainly, whatever opportunities occur will be pursued as vigorously in China as they are in all other markets, in accordance with the full intention of the Government.

Mr. Rankin: Although it may be the case, as my hon. Friend has said, that many Scottish firms did not apply for space at the exhibition, is he aware that Fairfield Shipbuilding Yard in Govan division made strenuous efforts to embark on trade with China but with very little help from the previous Government when they were in power?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would the Minister of State ensure that the Chinese are aware that we do not need one single egg from them and that our own domestic production is now at such a level that any increase in trade which depends on Chinese eggs coming into this country is quite unwelcome?

Mr. Redhead: I find it difficult to relate that supplementary question to the Question, but the hon. Gentleman might note that there is a later Question on the subject of eggs.

Pithead Buildings, Fife (Use)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for using for industrial purposes the modern buildings now lying derelict at the surface of the Aitken and Rothes pits in Fife; and whether he will invite industrialists to inspect these facilities with a view to renting or purchase.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): The Board of Trade will continue to draw the attention of firms to any land and buildings which the National Coal Board makes available for industrial use at these pits.

Mr. Hamilton: Have these buildings been inspected by any representatives from the Board of Trade? Is my hon. Friend aware that they could be modified and used by industrialists? The community of Kelty is very anxious for some new industry to come there. This is a very good opportunity for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to do a good service to that valuable community.

Mr. Darling: Yes, the buildings have been examined. There will be no buildings available at the Aitken pit. Most of those that are now there will be demolished. The remaining building there is being used by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, but there is land available at this pit and we are suggesting the site to a firm which we think will be interested in taking it. There are some useful buildings at the Rothes pit, and we have been told by the National Coal Board that it will consider any suitable inquiries for them. We are in close touch with the National Coal Board on this matter.

Derelict Sites (Clearance)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take to speed up the clearing of derelict sites, especially in areas of high unemployment.

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is reviewing the use which is made of the Board of Trade's powers under the Local Employment Act, 1960, relating to the clearance of derelict sites. There has been a marked increase in the number of schemes put forward by local authorities in the development districts since the rate of grant was increased last year.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that progress in clearing derelict sites is still depressingly slow? Is he aware that under the Labour Government's legislation in the 1945–50 era the grant for local authorities was 100 per cent.? It was subsequently reduced by the Tory Administration. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that it will be restored to 100 per cent. so that areas like my own can get on speedily with this job?

Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that the whole question of clearing derelict sites needs to be examined

again. I can assure him that, if he has any specific cases that he thinks we ought to consider, we will be very glad to look at them. The review my right hon. Friend is undertaking is to be a fairly speedy review and I hope to give some information to my hon. Friend before long.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the County of Durham and in the Northern Region generally local authorities find it quite impossible to solve the problem of clearing derelict sites through lack of finance? Unless more finance is provided, the derelict sites will remain for a long time.

Mr. Darling: These are some of the matters which we must take into consideration. It is not only a question of finance. There is confusion about powers in many cases, as to whose responsibility it is. We will take all these matters into consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there any difficulty as regards the powers of the National Coal Board to remove unsightly pit heaps and also mining machinery which is no longer of any value?

Mr. Darling: I should like to have notice of that question. If my right hon. Friend has a specific case in mind we should be very glad to look into it. The Board is usually very helpful in these matters.

Exports to South Africa

Sir H. Harrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will shortly make a visit to South Africa, in order to increase British exports to that country.

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a visit.

Sir H. Harrison: Is the Minister of State aware that that reply will cause a great deal of dismay to a large number of workpeople in this country who depend for their jobs upon the large volume of exports we have to South Africa? Will the hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that, in view of the large export trade we have with South Africa, as head of our Trade Department he should pay a visit to South Africa and help to increase our exports?

Mr. Redhead: Present circumstances do not indicate any urgent need for such a visit as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government do nothing which will reduce exports to South Africa, particularly of oil and other matters?

Mr. Redhead: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the clear statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25th November that the Government believe
that, except in war or near war conditions, one does not use trade as a means of expressing one's detestation of particular policies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1282.]
Arms are a separate matter. But this remains the considered view of the Government.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Will my hon. Friend consider making a world tour, because what we may lose on the South African swings we are likely to gain on the world roundabouts?

Shell Eggs (Import)

Sir H. Harrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to prohibit the import of shell eggs into this country.

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir.

Sir H. Harrison: Is the Minister aware that a large number of producers of shell eggs in this country have gone out of business? Why should we continue to allow all these foreign imports when we can produce sufficient in this country for our own consumption?

Mr. Redhead: There is no reason to imagine that the importation of eggs, which has amounted to less than 2 per cent. of total supplies, has had anything like the deleterious consequences the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind when he is considering these appeals from hon. Members opposite that the Committee of Ways and Means spent 15 hours yesterday defeating the efforts of the Opposition to prevent the Government from restricting imports at all?

Mr. Redhead: I am only too conscious personally of the extraordinary hours which the Committee spent on that subject.

Aberdeen (Offices and Homes)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effects on the City of Aberdeen of his proposals for the restriction of office building, indicating in particular the effect on the building of homes for the people.

Mr. Darling: I hope that the control of office development will result in a better distribution of office employment over the country, including Scotland. I cannot say how far Aberdeen may benefit, but I certainly do not expect the control to affect adversely the provision of housing there.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that, in order to make the proposals already adumbrated by him really effective for Aberdeen, it is essential fox him to keep in close contact with the housing and town planning departments of Aberdeen municipality? Will he indicate what steps he has taken in that direction and what steps he proposes to take in the future?

Mr. Darling: The White Paper which was recently published stated that comprehensive studies designed to throw light on the matters that my hon. and learned Friend has raised would be made. These would take into consideration town and country problems not only in Aberdeen but all over the country.

Mr. Woodburn: Would my hon. Friend ask the President of the Board of Trade to draw the attention of business heads to the fact that Aberdeen and other Scottish cities are among the most pleasant places in the world to live in, that they will be able to use their cars there, and that they would be able to have recreation after working hours, which is available in no other place in the country?

Mr. Darling: Certainly.

Sir R. Thompson: When can the legislation envisaged in the White Paper be expected, because the continuing uncertainty is having a very bad effect?

Mr. Darling: Very soon, but we have been here only seven weeks.

Advance Factories (South-West Scotland)

Mr. Brewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will authorise further advance factories to be built in areas of depopulation and unemployment in south-west Scotland.

Mr. Darling: The programme of nine advance factories for Scotland announced on 18th November included one of 12,000 sq. ft. in the Cumnock area. It is too early yet to consider a further programme, but when it is possible to do so the employment situation in South-West Scotland will be borne in mind.

Mr. Brewis: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that the factories built at Stranraer and Sanquhar by the last Government have been most successful? Will he bear in mind the very high rate of unemployment for men in this area and explain why the area was not included in the last announcement?

Mr. Darling: We are aware of the success of the Stranraer factory, but the hon. Member will be aware that advance factories are not the only inducements we have to bring industrialists to these districts. All the other inducements will be brought into play in the district about which he is speaking.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the news of the advance factory at Cumnock was received with great enthusiasm there as being the beginning of the good work of the Labour Government? Is he further aware that in this south-west area there are many villages from which women workers can get to work only by long bus journeys? Since some of them must be away from home for as much as 12 hours a day and are not paid very high wages, is my hon. Friend aware that advance factories in these areas would be very welcome indeed?

Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. We are well aware of the travel problems in the area referred to by my hon. Friend. As he said, the advance factory which the Government announced last month is only the beginning. The whole development district policy is being reviewed.

Mr. Noble: Does not the Minister of State realise that while hon. Members opposite criticise the former Administration for concentrating too much on the centre of Scotland, his Administration, in spite of what they said during the Queen's Speech, are doing exactly that at a moment when any imagination could have seen the opportunities in the outlying parts of Scotland today?

Mr. Darling: Perhaps if that imagination had been shown a few years ago we might have had a better distribution of industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also take into account the fact that this central area is the area of heaviest unemployment. It is that problem with which we must deal immediately. When I refered to the fact that we are reviewing the development districts, we have in mind a wider and longer-term proposition to spread industry over a wider area.

Surgical Instruments

Mr. Merlyn Rees: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take appropriate action to ensure that all surgical instruments imported into the United Kingdom should bear the engraved name of the country of origin, to prevent re-export as if of British manufacture.

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has no power to initiate changes in the requirements regarding marks of origin on imported surgical instruments. If an application were duly made, he would refer it to the independent Standing Committee, whose report he would carefully consider, as provided in the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926.

Shipbuilding Credit Scheme

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for extending the Shipbuilding Credit Scheme.

Mr. Pounder: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to renew the shipbuilding credit facilities for a further period.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): My right hon. Friend has no plans for renewing or extending the Shipbuilding Credit Scheme.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister of State aware that his reply will cause great concern in the shipbuilding industry? Is he aware just how much the industry has benefited from the two years of stability which this scheme has provided? In arriving at this decision, did he take into account the fact that the shipbuilding industry provides a great deal of employment in areas of high unemployment and that in the west of Scotland alone more than 70 per cent. of families depend, directly or indirectly, on this industry? Will he, therefore, review this decision?

Mr. Mason: We are fully aware of the concern which is felt in the shipbuilding industry over the running down of orders following the end of the Shipbuilding Credit Scheme. There is a fair volume of orders still within the industry and this will give us time to make a full appraisal of the fundamental problems facing the industry. That is the practical survey which I am now carrying out.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the Minister repeat to the House the pledges made in shipbuilding areas during the election?

Mr. Mason: I was not personally responsible for any of those. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Dame Irene Ward: The Minister is speaking for the Government.

Mr. Taylor: I wish to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Prime Minister (1) what proposals he has made to the United States Government about the United Kingdom sharing control of United States nuclear weapons;
(2) to what extent he proposes to share control of British nuclear weapons with other nations; with which nations; and on what basis.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing at present to add to what I said in the House on 23rd November.

Mr. Kershaw: Now that the Prime Minister is abandoning one by one his

Socialist policies, both financial and economic, now that he is keeping Polaris and Phantom and keeping up B.A.O.R. and our overseas bases and building a new aircraft carrier, how soon may we expect him also to take over Tory nuclear policy?

The Prime Minister: I did not know that it was the general view of hon. Members opposite that we were abandoning Socialist policies. I thought that the line of the Leader of the Opposition was that we were not, and should be doing. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. In regard to the long catalogue of defence announcements from the hon Gentleman—and we are always interested to know what defence announcements he has to make, although most of them relate to things about which we have not yet taken decisions; if he wants to announce them that is all right by us—[Interruption.]—these are all parts of our defence review which I have said is taking place. When we are ready with our decisions they will be announced to the House. As to the question of our nuclear policy, I said that I had nothing to add to what I stated on 23rd November.

The Earl of Dalkeith: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has full control over the Left wing of his own party on defence matters? Since it appears that many hon. Members opposite are against the idea of sharing weapons and providing bases for our American allies, can he assure us that he has complete control over those hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: I shall be going to Washington with a far more united party behind me than Mr. Macmillan had when he went to Nassau, when, on two or three issues, decisions which he took had to be reversed under pressure from the Suez Group.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should not like to comment on the delicate matter of the unity of the right hon. Gentleman's party, but does he understand that we want a most definite statement of his decision on the Polaris submarines as soon as we can possibly get it from him?

The Prime Minister: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance when he cannot even speak for the unity


of his own Front Bench, when he finds the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former President of the Board of Trade in complete disagreement on one question and all of them in disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on both incomes policy and economic planning.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORMER MINISTERS (DIRECTORSHIPS)

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that ex-Ministers of the Crown do not take up directorships in companies that have trading interests with Departments with which the Ministers concerned have been previously connected.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I believe that it is better to leave this to the discretion and good sense of the individuals concerned than to try to regulate it by legislation.

Mr. Morris: Would my right hon. Friend agree, as the new manager of the concern which they have left, and having read the books, that he should, in decency, send a personal note to the board rooms concerned to tell them what a shambles he inherited? Would he further agree that this is a serious public scandal requiring some urgent action?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend in his last few words was referring to the question of particular employment that has been taken up by any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite, I think that it has always been considered—and I said this when on the Opposition Front Bench about 12 months ago on a similar exchange—that this must be a matter for the discretion of the individuals concerned. An absolute ban on any further employment in firms which might have had some connection with a Department is one thing, and I am sure—

An Hon. Member: Timber.

The Prime Minister: I was never a director. As I was saying, on the other hand, I think that any ex-Minister thinking of taking up employment in a firm or industry which was in a contractual relationship with his Department would, I am

sure, feel it necessary to exercise his discretion against such an appointment.

Mr. Kershaw: Does the Prime Minister recall at this distance of time how many months it was after he ceased to be President of the Board of Trade that he joined Montague Meyer?

The Prime Minister: Yes—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go into individual cases.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. If that is going to be thrown across the House, one should have the right to reply. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: It is the duty of all hon. Members, in the general interest, to remain silent while the Chair is addressing the House. The point is that directly we drift into the mention of an individual case the hon. Gentleman passes out of the realms of what is possible in a question. For that reason it must be withdrawn.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Kershaw: If I said anything which is unparliamentary, of course I withdraw, but I would just say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—I would just say that it was the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) who started this exchange.

Mr. Speaker: That point does not appear to arise.

Mr. Shinwell: Could my right hon. Friend do anything to help those right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench who so far have failed to obtain lucrative employment—

Mr. Speaker: That is not part of the Prime Minister's responsibilities. He is not an employment agency. Mr Goodhart, Question No. 4.

Mr. Shinwell: I have not finished my supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (PRESS ADVISERS)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Prime Minister what guidance he has given to Ministers in charge of Departments on the appointment of Press advisers who are not established civil servants.

The Prime Minister: No special guidance has been given.
Such appointments as have been made do not conflict with the rules for temporary appointments which were in force under the previous Administration.

Mr. Goodhart: Can the Prime Minister say what security screening is given to these outside advisers and whether they are allowed to see any classified documents without being screened? Will he advise the advisers that the contradictory briefings given last weekend about the strength of B.A.O.R. are not helpful to anyone?

The Prime Minister: Exactly the same security considerations apply here as applied with the previous Government. There has been no change whatsoever in this respect. But I would make this point, because this is a problem which faced the previous Government as well as the present one. There are difficulties about the question of information officers in all Departments, and I think that there is a general desire, which I believe was shared by the previous Government, that we must try to do something towards working out a better form of career service in this field. Of course, it will be essential all the time to keep on recruiting those with journalistic experience, and this is highly desirable. But it would be a good thing if we were able—this is what we are trying to do—to work out a system of recruiting young journalists with short journalistic experience and bring them into a career service and, on occasion, as all Governments have done, to recruit them on a short—service commission basis.

Mr. Heath: In opposition the Prime Minister always expressed objection to these positions being filled by gentlemen who were not being paid. Is it not now the case that this is going on in his own Administration? Has he now changed his view or policy, or did not he know about this?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I know what is going on in this connection. There has been no change in our practice compared with what was done by the previous Government, particularly concerning industrial appointments, or between what is now going on and what I have said in the past. But I recognise, and have always recognised, that where it is a question in some technical and economic Departments of bringing in

industrialists to do a particular industrial job a very difficult salary problem arises. In these respects I have always felt it appropriate to bring them in under proper safeguards on a no-pay basis.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the position concerning the Foreign Office because, as he knows, this Department of State is probably better served as far as news is concerned both at home and abroad? There are many Foreign Office spokesmen. What will the gentleman now appointed to the Foreign Office do? What are his duties?

The Prime Minister: His duties are to assist the Chief Information Officer of the Foreign Office. This he is doing extremely well. I believe that the House as a whole feels that, despite the great distinction and diplomatic training of those who filled the post in the past, the question of Foreign Office public relations has not always been as good as it might have been.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL PROGRAMME

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to announce the increases in the existing naval programme, both of manpower and vessels.

The Prime Minister: The Government will frame proposals affecting the size of the Armed Forces as part of their review of defence policy as a whole.

Sir F. Bennett: When the Prime Minister makes his awaited announcement, will he recall his speech at Plymouth when he gave, for once, some extremely unequivocal pledges, namely, that we would have a stronger and more effective Navy, that we would forthwith reintroduce the hunter-killer submarine programme and that the Navy had been run down to a dangerous degree? If the latter statement is correct, does he think that we should wait as long as his announcement will take before doing something about it?

The Prime Minister: We have waited many years, have we not? I certainly remember those particular phrases, and many more besides, in that speech made in Plymouth during the election. The hon. Gentleman will, I think, recognise


that we have to present this defence statement in its entirety and that before we can find money for expanding any section of that programme we shall have to cut out the appalling waste which we have discovered in other parts of the defence production problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that local authorities are the best instrument for the discharge of planning responsibilities; and whether he will give consideration to the establishment of regional authorities divorced from local and electoral pressures.

The Prime Minister: Local authorities are certainly the best instrument for the local planning and control of land use in their areas. As for regional planning, this will be developed through the proposed regional planning boards and regional councils.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the Prime Minister say how he arrived at the conclusion that planning by local authorities is in fact satisfactorily carried out? Will he look at the situation and see whether there is a better system than the one which obtains at present?

The Prime Minister: I said that local authorities are the best instruments for local planning and for control of land use in their areas. We all recognise that many of the major decisions of the past 10 or 15 years have involved more than one local authority area, and in some cases 10, 15 and even 20 in a major case. This is one of the matters we are studying, and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State hopes to make a statement on our proposals for planning next week.

Mr. Heath: May we have an assurance that the First Secretary of State's statement will be made first to the House?

The Prime Minister: Our practice in this matter differs in no way from that of the previous Government.

Sir R. Nugent: Would the Prime Minister say what view he takes of the London Regional Planning Conference which consists of about 20 county autho-

rities which have come together voluntarily in order to plan on a regional basis in the south-east region? Does he approve of that, and does he wish to see it continue?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better wait for my right hon. Friend's statement, but if he wants to put down a Question about a particular area in a particular field of local government perhaps he will put it down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (SHIPMENT OF OIL)

Mr. Freeson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will initiate through the United Nations an international embargo on the shipment of oil to South Africa.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. All forms of measures, of which oil sanctions are only one, are at present being considered by the United Nations Expert Committee on Sanctions in New York. Her Majesty's Government are playing a full part in the work of this Committee, without commitment to adopt any particular measures which may be recommended. We must await the Committee's report.

Mr. Freeson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that drastic action is necessary to avoid a near-war situation developing in South Africa which could engulf Commonwealth countries and the African Continent as a whole and that the embargo on oil internationally would be a speedy way of getting the South African Government to negotiate an end to apartheid, which creates this situation?

The Prime Minister: The whole House in various ways has expressed its detestation of the apartheid policies of the South African Government. I said on a previous occasion—I think it was a week ago—that while an arms embargo is one thing—on this we have announced our decision—we are not committed in any way to any form of unilateral or multilateral control over trade in relation to South Africa. This is a matter which will have to be considered when this


Committee reports, but we have entered into the work of the Committee, as did the previous Government, without commitment as to the outcome of that work.
I have expressed the view in the House, and many times outside, that an oil sanction is very relevant to a near—war or war situation and that the only difference between an effective oil sanction and outright war is pretty well the difference between strangling a man slowly and hitting him on the head with a hatchet. One hopes that situations will not arise where either of these would be matters for consideration by the Government, or by any Government. But certainly we do not feel an oil sanction to be appropriate.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the Prime Minister made any calculation of what would be the cost to the sterling area if such a proposal were adopted?

The Prime Minister: Since we are not in fact considering adopting the proposal we did not do the calculation.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (REPORT OF INQUIRY)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BROOKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish the report of the inquiry by Mr. W. L. Mars-Jones, Q.C., into certain allegations against the Metropolitan Police, which has been in his hands since he took office.

Mr. SOLOMONS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the inquiry conducted by Mr. W. L. Mars-Jones, Q.C., into allegations concerning Metropolitan Police officers.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 60 and 62.
The report of the inquiry undertaken by Mr. Mars-Jones, Q.C., to whom I am much indebted for his painstaking and thorough investigation of the two cases involved, is being published today.
In the case of Halloran and Cox, which occurred in 1959, he finds the allegation

that a police report was deliberately suppressed and superseded by a second report in an attempt to exonerate the officers involved to be untrue; that there was no breach of duty on the part of any official in the Home Office; and that, apart from an act of thoughtlessness by one officer which did not result in any injustice, there was no breach of duty on the part of any officer of the Metropolitan Police force.
In the case of Tisdall, Kingston and Hill-Burton, which occurred in 1959, the allegation was that the facts disclosed by an investigation made in 1960 were deliberately covered up in order to avoid embarrassment to the police.
Mr. Mars-Jones finds that no one connected with the investigation acted dishonestly; that there was no attempt to conceal from the Home Secretary information relevant to the guilt or innocence of the men; and that there was no breach of duty by any official in the Home Office. He does find, however, that five police officers of subordinate rank—three of whom have since resigned—lied about the time and place of their first encounter with the three accused men; that if the evidence disclosed in the course of his inquiry had been available at the trial or appeal the three men would not have been likely to be convicted; and that the investigation of the complaint was neither thorough nor impartial.
Mr. Mars-Jones criticises three senior police officers—who have since retired; he attributes some part of the failure of the investigation to friction between a senior officer of the uniformed branch and the C.I.D. in the district concerned and at Scotland Yard; and he also criticises certain aspects of the arrangements for handling complaints against members of the Metropolitan Police.
In the light of the Report I am recommending the grant of free pardons to the three men concerned. I have referred the Report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but he informs me that he would not feel justified in instituting proceedings against the five officers, or former officers, who were found by Mr. Mars-Jones to have given false evidence.
In view of an undertaking given by the Commissioner of Police—which was communicated to the House by my predecessor


when he announced the setting up of the inquiry—that disciplinary action would not be taken against any serving officer who gave evidence before the inquiry the Commissioner is not free to take disciplinary action.
The Commissioner assures me that there is now a high standard of co-operation and good will between the C.I.D. and the uniformed branches of the force: the situation described in the Report developed from personal and local factors which no longer obtain. The procedure for dealing with complaints has been altered in a number of respects since 1960. In particular, under the Police Act, 1964, the report of the investigation of a complaint by a member of the public must be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions unless the chief officer is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed.
It has become increasingly the practice to put the investigation of serious complaints against Metropolitan Police officers in the hands of senior officers from other divisions or sub-divisions, and in the light of Mr. Mars-Jones's Report the Commissioner has issued explicit instructions that the investigation of complaints of serious crime should be carried out by officers who are not in the direct chain of command over the officer against whom the complaint is made.
The more detailed findings in the Report are being carefully examined in consultation with the Commissioner.

Mr. Brooke: As this inquiry was ordered by me, and the Report was submitted to me just before I left office, may I express my appreciation also to Mr. Mars-Jones for his admirable Report, with whose conclusions I entirely agree?
As the Report contains sharp criticism of the lack of judgment shown by an hon. Member in spreading exaggerated and distorted allegations against the police, does the Home Secretary consider that it is appropriate that that hon. Member should hold high Ministerial office in the Government?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: I think that that involves, of necessity, some reproof of the conduct of an hon. Member, and that is inappropriate in a question. I think that it would

require some other occasion, and on that account cannot be raised in this form.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to withdraw his criticism?

Mr. Brooke: I certainly withdraw if that is unparliamentary. May I, perhaps, ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that I agree entirely, having studied this matter with some care throughout, with the action that he proposes to take arising out of the findings of the Report so far as the police are concerned?

Mr. Solomons: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that extremely comprehensive reply, may I ask him to consider further the question of compensating the three young men to whom he referred?

Sir F. Soskice: So far as I heard the question, I think that it related to payment? Certainly, if any request is made for an ex gratia payment to the three persons whom I have mentioned, I will, of course, give it the most careful consideration.

Mr. Grimond: While welcoming this full inquiry into any allegation made against the police, and also while welcoming the statement of the Home Secretary on the action he proposes to take, may I ask him whether he agrees that at present nearly all the publicity which the police get is adverse, that they are undermanned and grossly overworked, that the vast majority of the police forces have the confidence of the public and do an excellent job, and that it should be made clear that while we have got to investigate these allegations, which are gross allegations against particular members of the police, it is time that the country woke up to the responsibilities which have been laid on the police forces in general and the work they are doing, with public support, in the very great difficulties they face in combating organised crime?

Sir F. Soskice: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The complaints which occasionally arise are extremely rare against the background of the enormous volume of work which the police undertake and carry out with the utmost efficiency while enjoying the utmost confidence of the public. I am aware that they are heavily overburdened,


and I am taking steps to see that recruiting is improved and that the police generally should be in a much better position to undertake the very heavy burden which rests upon the shoulders of each and every officer in the force.

KENYA (DEPORTATION OF BRITISH JOURNALIST)

Sir G. de Freitas: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he is making to the Prime Minister of Kenya concerning the 24 hours' notice of deportation served last night on Mr. Richard Beeston, a British citizen who has been living in Nairobi with his wife and three children.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): Our Acting High Commissioner in Nairobi has seen the responsible Kenya Minister on behalf of Mr. Beeston. He has drawn particular attention to the shortness of the notice given. The Kenya authorities have, however, informed the Acting High Commissioner that they cannot alter their decision.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the only other occasion that a British journalist was ordered to leave at 24 hours' notice, after representations the Government concerned changed their mind and gave him longer time? Can the Secretary of State hold out any hope, in view of the hardship which 24 hours' notice gives to a man with a family out there that at least the period will be extended?

Mr. Bottomley: It is our hope that Governments, in exercising their rights of deportation, will always pay due regard to the personal circumstances in each case. As I have said, our Acting High Commissioner has already raised with the Kenya Government the short notice given to Mr. Beeston.

Mr. Amery: Would the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Kenya Government that when we consider the freedom, not to say licence, with which the Kenya Press comments on events in this country, the Kenya Government risk making themselves a bit ridiculous if they take such very drastic action against a

correspondent of great repute known to many of us on both sides of the House?

Mr. Bottomley: It would not be right for me to speak for the Kenya Government. The British Government, as is well known, firmly support the principle of freedom of speech and of the Press.

Mr. Amery: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent this point to the Kenya Government through the Acting High Commissioner?

Mr. Bottomley: I do not propose to add to what I have said.

Mr. Hastings: Is not this the feeblest protest made by any Government for a long time? Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that on future occasions his Government will stick up for our citizens abroad, be they in the Commonwealth or elsewhere?

Mr. Bottomley: I have already said that our Acting High Commissioner has made representations to the Kenya Government.

Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why Mr. Beeston has been expelled from Kenya? If he does not know, will he inquire, because on the face of it there seems to be no good reason why this correspondent has been expelled.

Mr. Bottomley: As I have said on another occasion in the House, the question of deportation is one for the Government concerned, and we do not interfere.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 7TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.

Afterwards, the remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

TUESDAY, 8TH DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Protection from Eviction Bill.

Motion on the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 9TH DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Machinery of Government Bill.

THURSDAY, 10TH DECEMBER—Consideration of the Motions on the Army Act, 1955 (Continuation), and the Air Force Act, 1955 (Continuation) Orders, which if the House agrees, will be taken formally to allow a wider debate on the Services on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Science and Technology Bill.

MONDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—The proposed business will be: Supply [2nd Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Winter Supplementary Estimates, when a debate will take place on a subject to be announced later.

Sir A. Douglas-Home: May I ask a question about Wednesday's business? The Leader of the House will be aware that we are tabling important Amendments to the Machinery of Government Bill, which have considerable constitutional implications. At present, I do not see how we shall finish the Bill in one day.

Mr. Bowden: It is appreciated that on the Bill there are points of interest to both sides of the House, and no doubt many Amendments will be put down. But it should also be appreciated that this is an extremely important Bill from the Government's point of view, and I am quite sure that the Opposition would not wish to delay it unnecessarily.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Leader of the House tell us more about what is proposed for the business on Thursday? Is the debate to be confined to matters arising on the Army and Air Force, or will it include all three Services? Will it be in order to discuss bases? How far is the debate intended to be limited?

Mr. Bowden: In accordance with the normal custom, the debate is agreed between the usual channels. My understanding is that it will be a rather wider debate on the Services than that which normally takes place. It will include all the Services.

Mr. Popplewell: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Motion on the Order Paper and, if so, will he say—

Mr. George Thomas: Which Motion?

Mr. Popplewell: If I am given the opportunity, I will say which Motion.
Will my right hon. Friend say whether he proposes at any time to debate the Motion, or to make a statement about the suggested alteration of the meeting times of the House to bring them into a more sensible and commonsense arrangement?

[That this House, appreciating the fact that Parliamentary work is now a full-time occupation for back-bench Members as well as Ministers, urges Her Majesty's Government to consider the introduction of more appropriate hours of sitting, and suggests that the House should meet daily at 10.30 a.m., take Parliamentary Questions for one and a half hours and proceed with normal business until 7.00 p.m.]

Mr. Bowden: I have seen the Motion this morning. It is a Motion which I read with a great deal of interest, particularly after an all-night sitting. I think that it is too soon for me, as Leader of the House, to say anything about it other than that I will give it full consideration. There are many ramifications to this matter. I do not object to the idea—I think that there is a great deal in it—but there must be consultations through the usual channels before any firm action is taken.

Mr. Maude: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to a notice of Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and that of 75 of my hon. Friends about the future of the aircraft industry? In view of the urgency of this matter, if he cannot find time for it to be debated next week, can he arrange for the Government to make the interim statement for which the Motion calls?

[That this House deplores the damaging state of uncertainty which now surrounds the future of the British aircraft industry, and the lack of confidence which has been created by the hasty and confused statements of Her Majesty's Government; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to repair as much of this


damage as possible by giving an immediate assurance that no major projects will be cut without full discussion in Parliament.]

Mr. Bowden: I do not think that there is any possibility of debating this before the Christmas Recess. I have already announced the business up to 14th December, and one more business statement will bring us up to Christmas Eve. There is, therefore, hardly any time. But I fully appreciate the importance of the Motion, and I will speak to my right hon. Friend concerned and ask him whether he will make a statement at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Shinwell: Before my right hon. Friend decides to find time for a debate on the Motion referring to the sittings of the House, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), will he consult some of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches to find out whether it would be embarrassing for them to avoid their duties outside the House?

Mr. Bowden: I have already said that there would have to be consultations through the usual channels, and I should have thought that the usual channels on the other side of the House would be well aware of the views of their Members.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the deplorably weak reply just given by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to a Private Notice Question from his hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), will the Leader of the House kindly arrange for an early debate on the means necessary to secure reciprocity reciprocally throughout the Commonwealth justice and fair treatment for the persons, property and liberties of British subjects and Commonwealth citizens?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot provide time for that this side of Christmas.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the draft undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the North of Scotland (Orkney and Shetland) Shipping Company takes effect from 1st January, 1964? Will he consider

providing time, which the Conservative Government failed to provide, so that Scottish Members may discuss that undertaking?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot hold out any hope of time between now and the Christmas Recess, but I will certainly talk with the Secretary of State for Scotland about it.

Dame Irene Ward: When is it the Government's intention to table the Order under Customs and Excise regarding shipbuilding, which is required under the Finance Bill? If he can give me that information, can he also give me an assurance that, in the interests of the shipbuilding industry, there will be an opportunity to debate the order?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot give any such assurance.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate the Motion standing in my name, based on a petition signed by 10,000 Aberdonians, protesting against a monopoly imposed on taxi users in Aberdeen whereby one firm is allowed access to Aberdeen Station to pick up passengers and all the other taxi owners are excluded? It is a very important matter.

[That this House notes that a petition signed by 10,000 citizens of Aberdeen, protesting against the taxi monopoly enforced by British Railways in Aberdeen, whereby all except one of the Aberdeen taxis are debarred from picking up passengers at Aberdeen Joint Station, was presented to the Prime Minister on 26th November; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take steps to end that monopoly and allow freedom of transport to persons in Aberdeen requiring transport from Aberdeen Joint Station.]

Mr. Bowden: I appreciate the importance of this matter to 10,000 Aberdonians, but it has nothing to do with the Government. It is a matter between British Railways and the people concerned.

Mr. Fell: Has the Leader of the House had time to notice the Motion on the Order Paper concerning the safety of British subjects in the Congo and methods of saving them? The Motion is in my name and that of 144 right hon.


Members from this side of the House. If so, and in view of the extraordinary fact that there has still been no statement, in spite of reports of meetings between the Prime Minister and Mr. Spaak yesterday, will he please arrange for a very early debate on this matter?

[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to save the lives of British subjects who are held in the rebel areas of the Congo.]

Mr. Bowden: I have seen the Motion. I should think that it is a Motion with which not only 144 but 630 Members would agree—at least in respect of the contents and terms of the Motion. But I very much doubt whether any value would be obtained from a debate on this matter, or that any help would be given to the hostages by debating it. Conversations have taken place, as he rightly said, and the House and the country ought not to assume that nothing is being done. This is a very difficult problem, as he will appreciate. A statement may not help. Everything possible is being done.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask three fairly short questions? First, what date has my right hon. Friend in mind for the Christmas Adjournment? Secondly, when does he intend to set up the Select Committee on Procedure, because there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in the House as to the existing procedure. Thirdly, can he give an undertaking that one of the three days allocated each Session to the Reports of the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee will be given before Christmas?

Mr. Bowden: I shall announce the date of the Christmas Recess a week today.
Answering my right hon. Friend's third question about the debate on the Estimates, I cannot give a firm assurance before Christmas.
My hon. Friend asked about procedure. Here, again, there are difficulties about the order of precedence of the items which will be referred to the Committee. I said last week that it will be a combination of two things—a general review and items referred to the Committee in order of precedence on which we should hope to get interim reports.
My hon. Friend will have noticed on the Order Paper a Question about different sittings of the House. That might well go to the Committee and be given some sort of precedence.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We all realise the extreme delicacy of the situation in the Congo, but the Minister of State said that he would make a statement when he was ready. May we have an assurance that such a statement will be made either in the next few days or when we have a foreign affairs debate?

Mr. Bowden: I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend that he should make a statement when it is safe to do so in the interests of the hostages.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: In view of the fact that Question No. Q17 from the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)—about strikes during the election—was not reached today, may I ask whether the Leader of the House is aware that hon. Members would welcome an answer to that Question from the Prime Minister in the form of a statement before he leaves for the United States?

Mr. Bowden: I will draw that to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Heath: Is it correct that the Government do not now intend to introduce a major Measure dealing with monopolies, mergers and restrictive practices during this Session, but only to introduce a limited Measure dealing with the size of the Monopolies Commission?
Secondly, the Leader of the House told us last Thursday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a statement this week about the corporation tax and the capital gains tax. The Chancellor has not yet made it. We understand that at the moment he is abroad. Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Chancellor will give to the House the budgetary information about these taxes which has already been conveyed to the Press?

Mr. Bowden: I said last week that we are likely to have a very short Bill on the Monopolies Commission, which is to be followed by major legislation. I have not said that it would not be this Session. The short Bill, of course, will come first.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, the difficulty is that my right hon.


Friend has been away the whole of this week, as he probably knows, at the O.E.C.D. Ministerial meeting, but an opportunity will be taken for him to say something next week, probably on Tuesday, when there are Questions down to him.

Mr. Tiley: Will there be an opportunity before Christmas to discuss the Lawrence Report on Members' pay and pensions? Would it not be better to discuss this before we discuss hours of work?

Mr. Bowden: I hope that there will be an opportunity before Christmas to discuss that Report and any necessary legislation arising from it. The question of hours of work might be looked at by the Select Committee on Procedure if agreement cannot be reached rather more easily and quickly through the usual channels.

Miss Quennell: Will the Leader of the House emphasise to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture the need to make a statement to the House about the price arrangements for Channel Island milk before the House rises for the Christmas Recess? This matter was referred to yesterday.

Mr. Bowden: I shall advise my right hon. Friend of that.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Mr. Bowden: Matter of the Functions of the Secretary of State for Wales and Constitutional Changes in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE &c. [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions as to contributions (other than graduated contributions) and benefits under the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1964 and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts 1946 to 1964, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any increase attributable to the new Act in the sums so payable under section 2 (b) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 or section 1 (3) of the National Insurance Act 1959 (Exchequer supplements);
(b) of any increase in the sums so payable under the Family Allowances Act 1945, whether on account of allowances or of the expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, being an increase attributable to any provision of the new Act with respect to the treatment for the purposes of the said Act of 1945 of certain children legitimated under section 2 of the Legitimacy Act 1959 or attributable to the repeal by the new Act of section 30 (2) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946; and
(c) any increase attributable to the new Act in the sums so payable under section 60 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 or section 38 of the National Insurance Act 1946 (administrative expenses) as amended or applied by any subsequent enactment.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE &c. BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS UNDER INSURANCE ACT. 1963 c. 7. 1959 c. 47.)

3.58 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 2, at the end to insert:
(3) In section 6 (1) of the National Insurance Act 1959 (which provides for increases in retirement pensions for contributions paid after pensionable age) for the words "one shilling" where they first occur there shall be substituted the words "one shilling and sixpence" and for the word "sixpence" where it last occurs there shall be substituted the words "one shilling".


This Amendment is designed to increase the increments which a person can earn by postponing his retirement after pensionable age and by continuing to pay contributions while at work. The concept of earning increments on one's pension through continuing at work after pensionable age and paying contributions every week has been an integral part of our National Insurance scheme since its inception. It was an integral part of the Beveridge Report and it was an integral part of the first of the post-war National Insurance Acts.
During the period preceding the National Insurance Act, 1959, a person who continued in employment after pensionable age earned for himself an increment of 1s. 6d. on his pension for every 25 contributions which he made. At that time, there were frequent complaints that this period of 25 weeks was excessive. A man often had to retire for reasons of ill-health after, say, 23 or 24 weeks had passed, and he felt, with a certain amount of justification, that, after such a long period had passed, he was entitled to an increment. In fact, he received nothing, and it was often felt that he had been cheated out of the increment for which he had paid over a period and that all his effort had been wasted.
In 1959, a change was, therefore, made and the increment was earned after 12 weeks instead of after 25 weeks. The situation today stems from what was then laid down in 1959. For every 12 contributions paid a person who has postponed his retirement earns for himself an additional 1s. a week on his retirement pension when he ultimately takes it. There are similar provisions for a married person. A married person earns on behalf of his wife, provided that she is over 60 years of age—I know that this is a feature of the scheme which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster dislikes intensely—an additional 6d. a week on the pension after he has made 12 contributions.
As the Committee knows, there is a limit on the number of increments which can be earned on one's pension. One cannot go on earning increments after reaching 70 years of age. Expressing a personal opinion, I hope that the right hon. Lady, when she institutes her review of the whole structure of National Insurance, will look again at this limitation

on the earning of increments after 70 years of age. I do not myself see the logic of encouraging a man to continue in employment and earn increments on his pension up to the age of 70, but removing that encouragement immediately he attains 70 years of age. I regard this as one of the features which could be looked at in the general review of the scheme.
As a result of this limitation on the amount of increment one can earn, the position since 1959 has been that the absolute maximum increment which can be earned by a single person is 21s. a week on the pension and by a married person 31s. 6d. At the time when these increments were fixed by the National Insurance Act, 1959, the flat-rate pension for a single person was 50s. Under this Bill, the flat-rate pension for a single pension will be raised from 67s. 6d. to 80s. a week, an increase of 60 per cent. over the flat-rate pension for a single person in 1959.
While there has been this increase of 60 per cent. in the flat rate for a single person, the Bill makes no attempt to increase the increments, leaving them exactly where they were fixed under the 1959 Act. Exactly the same is true for a married person. In 1959, the flat rate pension for a married person was 80s. a week. It is now being raised from 109s. to 130s., and this is an increase of 62 per cent. over the 1959 figure. There is no provision in the Bill for increasing the increment in a way commensurate with the increase in the flat-rate pension.
Thus, as a result of a sequence of increases in the flat-rate pension, the increase made in 1961, the increase made in 1963, and the present increase being made by the Bill, the increments which a man can earn have become a steadily diminishing proportion of the flat-rate pension, and, not only that, but their actual value in real terms has been steadily eroded by the rise in the cost of living. Moreover, the whole Committee expects that, as a result of the inflationary twist which has been given to the economy in the past few weeks, there will be a further substantial rise in the cost of living during the coming year.
By the Bill, the Government are to make a substantial increase, which we all


welcome, in the flat-rate pension for single and married persons, but I should have expected them to regard as one of the priorities on which to concentrate attention the need to restore the relative value of the increments to the value fixed by the 1959 Act instead of allowing it to fall, as will occur under the Bill.
The increments not having been increased, my understanding is that a man must now live to at least 90 before he will even get a full return on the contributions which he has made. The right hon. Lady will be able to correct me if my amateur mathematics are incorrect.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: Could the noble Lord tell me when the increments were last increased?

Lord Balniel: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to a word of my speech, he would realise that I have said on several occasions that the increments were increased by the National Insurance Act, 1959, and I am suggesting that the time has come for a further increase to be made.

Mr. Hunter: Why did not the last Government increase them before now? We appealed to them to do so.

Lord Balniel: Will the hon. Gentleman do me the courtesy of listening to my speech?
The Amendment is deliberately framed as an exceedingly modest one, and I am putting it to the Minister in the genuine hope that she will find it possible to accept our very moderate proposal. We are proposing no more than to restore the relative value of the increments as determined by the 1959 Act. In 1959, the 1s. which could be earned after 12 contributions was 2 per cent. of the 50s. pension fixed under that Act. We propose by the Amendment that this increment should be increased to 1s. 6d. for a single person. This will be marginally less than 2 per cent. of the new 80s. pension for a single person.
In 1959, the 1s. 6d. increment for a married person was marginally less than 2 per cent. of the 80s. pension for a married person. We propose by the Amendment a 2s. increment for a married person, and this would be marginally less than 2 per cent. of the new 130s. pension. The right hon. Lady, who has studied the Amendment, will have realised

that we have placed a greater degree of emphasis on helping the married person. This is in conformity with the policies which were pursued by the late Administration, of giving additional help to dependents.
The absolute maximum increment which would be earned by a single person under the Amendment is 31s. 6d. and the absolute maximum increment for a married person would be 52s. 6d. The cost of this Amendment in the short term would be slight, but in the long term it would be a significant factor. I wish to thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in so promptly replying to a question of mine which sought to ascertain the cost which would be involved by this Amendment. The cost of increasing the increments as proposed for a single person would be about £250,000 during the next financial year and, in the long term, over a five-year period, it would rise to £25 million. The cost of increasing the increments for a married man would be £50,000 during the next financial year rising to £4 million in 1970–71.
I quite accept that there is an argument against increasing the increments. Professor Cairncross, in his minority Report to the Phillips Committee, actually proposed the abolition of the increments, but in doing so he put forward alternative suggestions which involved abolition of the retirement condition altogether and abolition of the earnings rule. Those who dislike the increments as a feature of the National Insurance Scheme say, with a certain amount of justification, that the increments do not provide much incentive for a person to stay on at work after he has reached pensionable age.
This certainly was the view of the Phillips Committee in 1959. In paragraph 201 of its Report it said:
A small prospective increase in the pension later on, though welcome when it comes, can seldom affect the decision".
That is the decision whether or not to retire. I quite accept that the decision which a man or woman makes on reaching the age of 65 or 60 whether to retire or not is primarily governed by that person's health, by the habits of his lifetime, by the sharp drop in income which follows on retirement, and by such intangible factors as the happiness and contentment which he gets from continuing at work.
The dominating factor, quite clearly, is not the increments. None the less, they are a factor which is taken into account. I quite accept that the increments are not the dominating factor in the decision whether to retire or not, but I—and certainly the last Administration—felt that the structure of National Insurance should be framed so as to give some encouragement to people who wish to go on working to continue to do so. We feel that our social policies should be directed, not, of course, towards forcing a man to continue at work after his strength or health has failed, but to encourage those who wish to continue in employment to do so. Certainly, we should not discourage people who want to continue in employment from doing so.
4.15 p.m.
I quote from paragraph 201 of the Phillips Committee's Report. Referring to the increments, it said:
They may have little effect as an incentive to postpone retirement but they are a well-known feature of the National Insurance Scheme and if they were removed or materially reduced"—
Those are significant words—
we should expect the public reaction to this change to be seriously unfavourable to the success of the steps now being taken to facilitate and promote voluntary postponement of retirement.
The Government are not reducing this in actual terms, except that it is being reduced in real terms through the rise in the cost of living, but it is this reduction which is actually occurring in practice—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): The noble Lord keeps referring to the rise in the cost of living. Would he tell us what increase in the cost of living is taking place at present?

Lord Balniel: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the rise in petrol tax will not have any effect on the cost of living, he is living in the dream world in which the entire Government seem to be seeking shelter.

Mr. Pentland: The noble Lord is trying to build a case on increases in the cost of living, or expected increases in the cost of living. Will he present any evidence as to the percentage increase he

expects, or which he thinks is now present?

Lord Balniel: There certainly has been an increase in the cost of living since these increments were last fixed.

Mr. Michael Foot: Under the noble Lord's Government.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Member is entitled to interrupt, but if he thinks that this is a proper field in which to make party political points that is his opinion.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The noble Lord's Government were in office for 13 years.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman asked me to say whether there has been a rise in the cost of living. If the Government proceed in the manner in which they have proceeded so far, a sharp twist to the inflationary spiral is an absolute certainty for the country.

Mr. Michael Foot: All that the noble Lord was asked by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was a simple question: what was the percentage of increase expected? It was a perfectly simple question. He does not need to "go off the deep end" about it.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the hon. Member opposite aware that in so far as the—

The Chairman: Order. We cannot have these three-cornered questions. If the hon. Lady wishes to ask a question of her own Front Bench she may do so, but we cannot have three-cornered discussions.

Lord Balniel: The Amendment proposes to compensate for the rise in the cost of living which has occurred since 1959—the rise which the right hon. Lady herself referred to in her memorandum presented to Parliament recently. I am not Professor Balogh or Mr. Kaldor. Obviously, I cannot prognosticate what the rise in the cost of living will be, but I think it reasonable for us to try to help these pensioners to have increments which will help to compensate for the rise which has occurred since 1959 and try to insulate them against a future rise in the cost of living.
These increments have not been increased in the last three successive


National Insurance Acts. They have been materially reduced as a proportion of the pension received by retirement pensioners. They have also been materially reduced in real purchasing power as a result of the rise in the cost of living. People will say, "What is the point of my continuing to work and to pay substantially increased contributions under the Bill when the increments are not increased commensurately?"
There increments have also been reduced as a proportion of average earnings in the country. Average earnings in 1959, when the increments were last fixed, were 261s. 10d. Today, they are 352s. 5d. One has a general picture which has developed under successive insurance Measures and the present Insurance Bill. Contributions have gone up and the increments form a smaller proportion of the pension, a smaller proportion of average earnings, and they have been reduced in actual earning power.
There is another very significant argument for increasing the increments. When the Report was written, in 1959, the Phillips Committee thought that the trend towards earlier retirement had been halted and actually reversed. While the Report was being written, the Government Actuary was also writing his second quinquennial Report. The Government Actuary at that time assumed that 45 per cent. of all men in this country would retire immediately they reached the age of 65.
In the last few days we have been presented with the third quinquennial Report of the Government Actuary. This shows that that assumption made in 1959 was a false one. The Government Actuary, in 1959, assumed that 45 per cent. of men would take up the pension immediately on reaching the age of 65. In fact, in 1959 the proportion was 47 per cent. In 1960, it was 45 per cent.; in 1962, 53 per cent.; and in 1963 54 per cent. So the trend during the last five years, as shown by the Government Actuary, has been towards people steadily retiring earlier and earlier.
The arguments for increasing the increments are twofold. There are the humanitarian arguments and the economic arguments. To my mind, the humanitarian arguments are the dominating ones in reaching a decision

on this matter, but, of course, economic arguments are not totally insignificant. The economic arguments are that the country needs all the people, of whatever age, who are fit, willing and anxious to continue in work, to do so. The greater the number of elderly persons who continue in employment, the smaller the burden which is borne by the rest of the community.
Consequently, one can place greater emphasis on helping those in greatest need, the elderly, the chronic sick, widowed mothers and those receiving other benefits directed specifically to those in need. I believe that it is widely agreed in the Committee that all people who are fit, anxious and able to continue at work in their own interests should be encouraged to do so. To continue in employment is for elderly people often a very important emotional and psychological need. They feel a sense of satisfaction in maintaining their independence. They maintain a higher standard of life.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Would the noble Lord agree that one of the main reasons why, over the last 13 years, people have stayed at work beyond the age of 65 was that the miserable pensions doled out by the Tories were not sufficient to live on?

Lord Balniel: I am sure that the marked drop in income which follows retirement is a factor. It would be folly to pretend that it was not. But it is also true that people are retiring early partly because of the failure of successive insurance schemes to increase increments as they should be increased. It is very important for elderly persons that they should be able, and encouraged, to continue at work to maintain this sense of independence and self-respect which many of them believe to flow directly from continuing employment.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman: I hope that we shall not have too many interruptions. There are many Amendments with which to deal and this is only the first.

Lord Balniel: Our social policies ought positively to encourage people to continue in employment if they feel inclined to do so. I regret that one of


the features of the present Bill is that the increments are of steadily diminishing importance. The Amendment is designed modestly to restore the increments to the relative value at which they were fixed in 1959.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I want the basic pension eventually to be so increased that a person can retire at a proper standard of living. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) wants to encourage people not to retire so that that can save the Government money. That is not the policy of the Labour Party. If the Labour Government stay in power long enough, I am confident that we will eventually get a proper basic pension for the man at 65 and the woman at 60. At the same time, if someone is fit and wants to continue work, then the increment should be increased.
The noble Lord said that the last time it was increased was in 1959, which means that the last Government did nothing for five years. With a change of Government, hon. Members opposite now come forward with this policy. I am in favour of increasing the increments and I know that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the desirability of doing so. However, we want to be honest in politics and not press for one thing in opposition and then do something different when in power. For five years the last Government did nothing to increase these increments. I am in favour of increasing them and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter.

4.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I support the Amendment. The right hon. Lady has introduced a Bill with which we are all very much in sympathy. However, she has left a number of gaps in it and it is our object to try to fill one of them. Although benefits are to go up generously, the right hon. Lady is proposing to leave the level of the increments precisely as they have been for some time. She is giving the man who defers his retirement a very bad bargain and the State an unwarrantably good bargain.
Let us consider the case of a single man forgoing his pension for the full span of time from 65 to 70. That is roughly

260 contribution weeks and the maximum increment which he can earn on the present scale is 21s., that is to say, those 260 contribution weeks divided into blocks of twelve. However, during that time, if the scales of benefit proposed in the Bill are introduced, he will forgo 260 payments of £4 a week, a total of £1,040. He will also pay at the standard rate of contribution on his own account 13s. 8d. a week on the new scales, a total over the five years of £177 13s. 4d.
We have also to consider the employer's contribution—because this is money which the State is obtaining one way or another—and, at 26s. 7d. a week, that will give a total of both types of contribution over the five years of £345 11s. 8d. The single man who defers his retirement for the full five years will, therefore, make the State better off by £1,385 11s. 8d. Before he breaks even on that bargain, he will have to live until he is more than 95.

Mr. Cyril Bence: This has been going on for years.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I am well aware of this. If the hon. Gentleman will turn up HANSARD for 3rd February, 1956, he will see that I then made a speech on these lines. I should like to tell him that then, with a Conservative Government, the figures were nothing like so unfavourable as it is proposed to make them under a Socialist Government. What is more, in 1959 something was done to put the matter right, not enough, but something. The hon. Gentleman should be more careful about sorting out his facts before intervening.
With the new proposed benefits for himself and his wife, assuming that she is of pensionable age, too, the married man will get £6 10s. a week. If that is forgone for five years, that gives a total of £1,690. The contributions will be the same, assuming that only the man is contributing, and the State will, therefore, benefit to the tune of £2,035 11s. 8d. As a married man he will get an additional increment on account of his wife and will not have to live quite so long as the single man to break even—only until he is just over 94, assuming that his wife is alive, too. If she predeceases him, he will have to live longer to break even.
Our proposal would go some little way to improving this state of affairs for the single man and would go further for the married couple. I commend the Amendment to the right hon. Lady. If she cannot give a definite answer this afternoon, I hope that she will look at these figures, which I believe to be tolerably correct. I am not all that accurate in my arithmetic, but I do not think that my figures are all that wrong and I hope that the right hon. Lady will give the Amendment serious and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the Committee how long the single man and the married man respectively would have to live in order to get back their contributions if the increments were raised to the levels proposed?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Yes. We propose that for the single person it should be 31s. 6d. instead of 21s. As that is adding an extra half, in simple terms it would take about two-thirds of the time. The same applies to the married man. If an extra half is added to the incremental benefit, the time taken to break even on the figures I have quoted would be roughly two-thirds of the time now taken.

Mr. Pentland: I am aware that many arguments can be used in an attempt to justify increases in increments. We have all been aware of that for many years. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) referred to some of them on which I shall touch as I go along. In her speech on Second Reading last Wednesday, the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) advanced two arguments for increasing the rates of increments. Today, the noble Lord has more or less filled in the pattern of what the hon. Lady would expect her arguments would achieve.
First, it is clear that while increments have always been related to the amount of pension forgone, increment rates have not been increased since 1959, although pension rates have gone up on three occasions since then. The hon. Lady and the noble Lord will be aware that increments do not, and were never intended to, provide a full actuarial

return for the extra contributions paid and the extra benefits forgone during the deferment of retirement. I understand from my study of this subject in the short time that I have been at the Ministry that all Governments in the past have followed the concept laid down in the Beveridge Report.
Paragraph 246 of the Beveridge Report says:
The increases for postponement after minimum pensionable age are designed to give the individual some, though not all, of the saving in pension expenditure resulting through his postponement and are related, therefore, to the amount of the basic pension which is postponed.
If we are to discard the concept of Beveridge—and the Amendment would probably lead us to that conclusion—and accept that a full actuarial return should be given, there would be no ultimate saving to the National Insurance Fund by the postponement of retirement. As a consequence, the whole purpose of helping to provide a higher rate of benefit for those who had ceased work would be destroyed.
I know that comparisons and examples can be given about the percentage the prevailing maximum increment rate is of the pension rate, but too much weight should not be given to those comparisons, because the rate has fluctuated so much since 1948. Everyone in the Committee is aware of that, and that increment rates have never been increased as frequently as pension rates. Indeed, since 1948 there has been little connection at all between the timing of an increase in benefit rates and an increase in increment rates.
I think that I am right in saying that the two increases coincided on only one occasion, and that was in 1951. The benefit increases made by previous Conservative Governments in 1952, 1955, 1958, and 1961 were not accompanied by increases in increment rates. The 1959 increment increase which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman was made independently of other benefit changes at that time.
The second point which the hon. Lady deployed in her speech on Second Reading, and it was deployed by the hon. Gentleman today, was that an increase in increment rates was needed to give an extra incentive to defer retirement. This was one of the main planks of his


argument. I would accept at once, as would my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, that increments provide extra income for the later years of life when it is most likely to be helpful to retirement pensioners, hut, here again, I do not think that the incentive argument should be over stated, and it was not, or at least not too much, by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Phillips Committee, which, he claimed, reported in 1959. Actually, that Committee reported in 1954. There was another Committee which also reported in 1954 and I am sure that the hon. Lady, with her knowledge of the Department, is aware of that Report. The inquiry was conducted by the Ministry of Pensions in 1953. It was an inquiry into the reasons for retiring or continuing at work, and it was found that fewer than 1 per cent. of men who stayed on at work after reaching the minimum pension age gave increments as the main reason for doing so.
4.45 p.m.
As the hon. Gentleman said, men are attracted to work by financial considerations. It depends on the jobs available, on the salary or wage which the individual can earn, and on the man's ability to continue in work when he has reached retiring age. Another important factor, of course, is the opportunity to work, and this can vary considerably from one part of the country to another. In Durham, it is extremely difficult for a man over 65 to continue in work, even though he may have the ability to do so, because of the unemployment problem. I accept that this state of affairs is not as prevalent in the Midlands or in the South as it is further North. However, there are these differences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) was correct when he intervened during the speech of the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that when a man is nearing 65 he wants to continue working because he likes doing so. He may be interested in, and enjoy, his job but the vast majority of those who work in heavy industries continue to do so because in their view, and in the view of this side of the Committee, the pension is not sufficient for them to live on. The real answer to all these problems which face the retirement pensioner when he is reaching retirement age

is to provide him with a substantial pension during the years of his retirement This is exactly what we on this side of the Committee hope to bring forward in the years ahead.
The Amendment raises other complications to which I could refer if hon. Members desired me to do so, but I must make it clear, to save the time of the Committee, that the Government do not consider that this is the appropriate time to increase these increments. We believe that any change at this stage might complicate the wider task of reconstructing the benefit and contribution structure of the whole scheme, and the merging of existing rates into any new scheme which the Government may bring forward.
We see great dangers here, in the light of any new scheme which we may bring forward in the future. But, having, said that, I must point out that we will continue to keep these rates under sympathetic consideration. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should make no mistake about that. We have by no means closed our minds to the importance of increment rates.

Mr. A. P. Costain: To assist us to assess this, could the hon. Gentleman say when such legislation is likely to be brought in?

Mr. Pentland: Not at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, it will come along in due course.

Lord Balniel: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may not be able to say when further legislation will be brought in. One of his main arguments against accepting the Amendment is that it will complicate the future structure which is being considered by the review. Can he tell us when he expects to know the result of the review?

Mr. Pentland: I could not do that, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. This is a complicated business, and I am sure that anyone who has served in the Ministry knows that this is a terrific job. The point is that we are embarking on an investigation into the whole structure. After giving consideration to the matter, we have found that the increment question has complications if one takes the whole structure of the scheme into consideration.
The Committee knows that there are other methods by which one can improve


the increments. I am not saying that this will be done. I am saying that if there were any alteration of the flat-rate provision it would probably be preferable to effect an improvement by altering the number of contributions which earn 1s., as has been done in the past. We could do it this way, rather than by altering the value of the increment earned for every twelve contributions.
I do not want to deceive the Committee. These thoughts are running through our minds. I am not saying that this will be done immediately. I am only trying to impress on the Committee that there are other methods which we could use, without delving into the complicated one suggested in the Amendment. These are matters for the Government to decide, but, in the meantime, I repeat that we will give this our full consideration.
We cannot accept the Amendment, for the reasons which I have given, and for many more which I could give. If the Amendment is not withdrawn, I invite the Committee to reject it in the Division Lobby.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: There are two questions arising out of the answer which the hon. Gentleman has just given. He claimed, quite rightly, that these increments in the past had not normally been increased at the time when there had been increases in the standard rates, but does he not recognise that there comes a time when the standard rates of benefit get widely out of step with the increments, and that something must be done? We are trying to impress upon him and his right hon. Friend that this is such a time.
On his second point, he quoted the 1953 Report as saying that of those who were interviewed a very small percentage claimed that the increment for deferred retirement had any influence in making them defer their retirement. Would he not recognise that if the increments had been rather more generous, a greater percentage might have given a favourable answer?

Mr. Pentland: I cannot accept that. I have said that, in our view, this is not the time. Between 1959 and 1964 his Government had the opportunity to put this matter right had they wanted to. We say that this is not the time. The hon.

and gallant Gentleman was in the Department. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would remind me of his second point?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: It was about the small percentage who claim that the increment had no influence in making them defer retirement.

Mr. Pentland: This is hypothetical. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's guess is as good as mine. All I was pointing out is that this was an extensive inquiry by the Ministry of Pensions into the reasons for retiring or continuing at work and it resulted in only 1 per cent. of the people approached saying that the increment rates were an attraction.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: From the speeches that we have heard from the benches opposite two things emerge. The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut-Commander Maydon), who was a Parliamentary Secretary in the last Administration, made out his case on an actuarial basis. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) based his case on very different reasons. I do not dispute the hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures. I am sure that they must be correct, but this matter has gone on since 5th July, 1948, and during that time we have had 13 years of Conservative Government. It comes with some cynicism and ill-grace for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to advance now the argument on an actuarial basis which he has put forward for an increase in the increments.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If the hon. Gentleman had been here, and had listened to my reply to an intervention by one of his hon. Friends, he would know that I answered that point. It was on 3rd February, 1956, that I produced precisely the same arguments. The figures were different, but the arguments were the same, and I am glad to say that three years later the Conservative Government took heed of what I said and made a considerable improvement.

Mr. Taylor: May I say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have been here all the time and listened both to his speech and that of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford. I heard what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence),


but the fact remains that men over 65 and women over 60 who decide and have the opportunity to stay at work—I shall come to that in a moment—are entitled to increments. All that he said about the actuarial basis has continued since 1948 and 13 years of that period have been under a Conservative Administration. As I sat here I came to the conclusion that it comes with some cynicism and ill-grace from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
In considering the actuarial question, I am relying on the promise of my right hon. Friend, given during the Second Reading. I am also reminded of the speech that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made during the debate on the Gracious Speech. He said that this Measure was a rescue operation. It was to meet need where it was most sorely felt. My right hon. Friend the Minister made the same comment. Both intimated that this is only a short-term Measure, that the whole structure of National Insurance will be reviewed, and that at a not too distant date we shall have the proposals before us.
I turn for a moment to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford and ask him a question which I tried to put to him in an intervention. He seemed to base his case entirely on the supposition that if the increments were increased it would be an inducement to people to go on working. The point that I want to make—my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made it as well—is that in these days of mechanisation and automation in industry people arriving at the age of 65, however willing and desirous they may be of continuing to work, have no option.
In the industry which I know best there is compulsory retirement at 65. I would say to the noble Lord that the argument which he adduced for an increase in increments is a very weak one, because the pattern of behaviour in retirement, over which the people themselves have no control, has considerably changed.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in rejecting this Amendment, will look at the question of increments

in the light of changing circumstances in industry with regard to retirement and will come forward with some constructive proposals when the time arrives.

Mr. Costain: I want to intervene for only a few moments because I was so disappointed with the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. My appreciation of the Amendment, which I thought was most reasonable and very well proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), is based on the fact that the pension scheme itself, if taken to its conclusion, is a pension scheme payable at 70 with the option to retire at 65 should people so desire.
The Parliamentary Secretary, as a good trade unionist, has always taken the view, on which I support him, that the rate for the job is the proper pay, but I think that in this case, if we do not increase increments between 65 and 70, we are taking advantage of the person who wishes to work after 65.
That I very much resent. The argument whether a man or woman should work on after this period is almost irrelevant. I have talked to a number of pensioners in my constituency, and many of them say that they would like to work on after the age of 65 because they cannot bear being in the house when the "old woman" is cleaning it out. Some of them are very grateful for being able to get away. But that is no reason why we should underpay them for the job.
The argument that these increments should not rise on every occasion when there is an increase in pensions can easily be shot down. When we are dealing with marginal fractions, those fractions come into their own only when there have been a number of increases which catch up with the fractions. I believe that after the Conservative Government have given many pension increases this is the occasion when the increment should rise. This is a chance for the Labour Government to catch up with their conscience. This is an opportunity for them to do the right thing. If they reject the Amendment they will be doing the wrong thing.

5.0 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: When the Parliamentary Secretary was replying I took the view at first that he was not in favour of the increment


system at all. I was, therefore, somewhat relieved when he said later that he would give the matter sympathetic consideration. The increment system is an essential part of the National Insurance Scheme.
I can put the case quite simply, in the way in which it was put in the Beveridge Report, from which the Parliamentary Secretary quoted. Paragraph 246 says, in referring to increases for postponement after reaching minimum pensionable age, that the increases for increments
are related therefore, to the amount of the basic pension which is postponed.
The hon. Gentleman quoted that as being some compensation, although not all, for the amount of benefit which is forgone. In other words, if a man goes on working after he could have retired, and, therefore, goes on paying contributions, he gets an increased pension when he retires. That increased pension does not make up for what he did not draw earlier, although it is considerably greater than the basic rate.
If, therefore, we accept that the increments are related to the amount of the basic pension which is postponed, the longer the period that has elapsed since the increments were put up the more urgent it is that they should be put up. I accept that the basic rates have been increased only twice since the inception of the scheme—once in 1951 and once in 1959—because the compensation has been changed less often than the basic rate, for reasons to which my hon. Friend has referred.
There have been other changes in increments, the last of which was as recently as 1961, when changes were made in incremental provisions for wives and widows. I rest my case on the principle enunciated in the Beveridge Report and repeated by the hon. Member, that increments are related to the amount of the basic pension which is postponed. This is the third rise in basic pensions since increments were changed, and it is time that we had some increase in the amount of increment. I therefore

ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): The hon. Lady is now quite clearly making the case that every time there is an increase in pensions—

Mrs. Thatcher: No.

Miss Herbison: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to take up her points one by one. She quoted from the Beveridge Report, as did my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to the effect that there should be some relationship between the increments and the amount of pension forgone. But what she was really saying, in logic—although she may not think she was saying it—was that every time there is an increase in the basic pension there must be an increase in the increments.
If that is the case my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Bernard Taylor) was quite right to say that we have had 13 years of Tory rule and that from 1951 right up till 1959, in spite of various increases in the basic rate of pension, there was no increase at all in the increments. In 1959 an increase was given. There have been two increases under the previous Administration since 1959.
Again, I come back to the logic of the hon. Lady's case. According to her there should have been an increase in the increments in 1961 and 1963, but no increase was given. I stress, as my hon. Friend has stressed, that we decided that this was not the time to make an increase in the increment. My hon. Friend made it quite clear that in the general review of all social security provisions which is to take place this matter will receive serious consideration. I hope that when we go to the Division Lobbies, as it looks as if we shall, the Amendment will be over-whelmingly defeated.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 169, Noes 207.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[5.8 p.m.


Alison. Michael (Barkston Ash)
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bingham, R. M.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bell, Ronald
Black, Sir Cyril


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Blaker, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)


Barlow, Sir John
Biffen, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.




Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brewis, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bullus, Wing Commander Sir Eric
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Burden, F. A.
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hawkins, Paul
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hay, John
Pitt, Dame Edith


Campbell, Gordon
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pym, Francis


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hendry, Forbes
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hiley, Joseph
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cooke, Robert
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Roots, William


Cooper, A. E.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Royle, Anthony


Cordle, John
Hordern, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Hornby, Richard
Sharpies, Richard


Costain, A. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Sinclair, Sir George


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Crawley, Aidan
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jennings, J. C.
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Curran, Charles
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dance, James
Kerby, capt. Henry
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dean, Paul
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thorpe, Jeremy


Doughty, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fell, Anthony
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walder, David (High Peak)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Maitland, Sir John
Wall, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Walters, Dennis


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mathew, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Gardner, Edwward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Giles, Read-Admiral Morgan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wylie, N. R.


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitchell. David
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector



Grant, Anthony
Morgan, W. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. MacArthur and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar
Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Freeson, Reginald


Alldritt, W. H.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Garrett, W. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dalyell, Tam
Garrow, A.


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ginsburg, David


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gourlay, Harry


Bacon, Miss Alice
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Gregory, Arnold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Barnett, Joel
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Bence, Cyril
Doig, Peter
Hale, Leslie


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Donnelly, Desmond
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Binns, John
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Bishop, E. S.
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Dunn, James A.
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Hattersley, Ray


Boston, T. G.
Edelman, Maurice
Hayman, F. H.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hazell, Bert


Boyden, James
English, Michael
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ennals, David
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ensor, David
Holman, Percy


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Horner, John


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fernyhough, E.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Howie, W.


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hoy, James


Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Floud, Bernard
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)




Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Murray, Albert
Skeffington, Arthur


Jeger, George (Goole)
Neal, Harold
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Newens, Stan
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Small, William


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Solomons, Henry


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Norwood, Christopher
Sorensen, R. W.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Ogden, Eric
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Kenyon, Clifford
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Orbach, Maurice
Stones, William


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Orme, Stanley
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Lawson, George
Oswald, Thomas
Stross, SirBarnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Owen, Will
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Padley, Walter
Swain, Thomas


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Symonds, J. B.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Paget, R. T.
Taverne, Dick


Lipton, Marcus
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurence
Thornton, Ernest


MacColl, James
Pentland, Norman
Tinn, James


McGuire, Michael
Perry, E. G.
Tuck, Raphael


McInnes, James
Popplewell, Ernest
Urwin, T. W.


MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Prentice, R. E.
Varley, Eric G.


Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Probert, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


McLeavy, Frank
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacMillan, Malcolm
Rankin, John
Wallace, George


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rees, Merlyn
Warbey, William


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Richard, Ivor
Whitlock, William


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Manuel, Archie
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mapp, Charles
Robinson, Rt.Hn. K. (St.Pancras,N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mellish, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Mendelson, J. J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mikardo, Ian
Rose, Paul B.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Woof, Robert


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)



Molloy, William
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Monslow, Walter
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Mr. McCann and Mr. Harper.

Mr. Paul Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 6, at the end to insert:
Provided that in section 17(1)(c) of the Insurance Act for the word "fifty" there shall be substituted the word "forty-five".

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Leslie Thomas): I think that together with this Amendment it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss Amendment No. 3 in page 2, line 6, at end insert:
(4) Section 2(5) of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1956, which amends section 18(1)(a) of the Insurance Act to provide that a widow who ceases to be entitled to a widowed mother's allowance shall not have a right to a widow's pension unless at the time when the entitlement ceases she is over the age of fifty, shall have effect as if for the word "fifty" there were substituted the word "forty-five".

Amendment No. 7, in line 39, leave out "subsection (1) or (3)" and insert "sub sections (1), (3), or (4)".

Amendment No. 17, in Schedule 5, page 16, line 9, at end insert:
15. In section 17(1)(c) for the word "fifty" there shall be substituted the word "forty-five".

Amendment No. 18, in page 17, line 12, at end insert:

The Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1956

(4 & 5 Eliz. 2 c. 50)

20. In section 2(5), for the word "fifty' there shall be substituted the word "forty-five".

Mr. Dean: The object of this and the other Amendments is to reduce the age at which widows qualify for a permanent pension from the present age of 50 to 45. May I, first, remind the Committee of the position as it is at the moment? Widows without dependent children qualify for a permanent pension if they are widowed before the age of 50, dating from the 1946 Act, and the same applies to the widowed mother if none of her children is still dependent when she reaches the age of 50.
That dates from the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1956, which was based on a previous Report by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Before that Act, the age in the case of the widowed mother was 40. The 1956 Act was, I believe, generally


acknowledged as providing a substantial improvement in the provisions for the widowed mother—a substantial increase in the benefits for her and the children, what we call the "flying start", with regard to cover for sickness, for unemployment, the entitlement to a widowed mother's allowance for children up to the age of 18 instead of the previous age of 16 and the reduction of the qualifying period of marriage from 10 years to three years.
I think that the party opposite acknowledged at the time that this was a very substantial improvement in the cover for the widowed mother, but hon. Members opposite did have reservations about the fixing of the age of 50 in the case of the widowed mother for a permanent pension. I remember the right hon. Lady the Minister, saying at that time that she felt that the age of 50 was too high, that it should be 45 or even lower. She then went on to refer to the possibility of having a sliding scale for widows' benefits.
In view of this, and of the Amendment which the party opposite moved at the time to reduce the age to 45, I am very hopeful of a sympathetic reception for this proposal from them this afternoon. I believe that there are now arguments for believing that the age of 50 is too high. There are, I believe, four main reasons for this.
The first is that a woman who finds herself widowed, say at the age of 49, or whose children just cease to be dependent at that age, very often finds it extremely difficult to get a job. Although the "flying start" is of help to her, the unemployment provision only lasts for a period of 19 months. We all know, on both sides of the Committee, of cases where there is a real difficulty for widows of the ages of which I am speaking. Even if a widow at this age succeeds in getting employment, she has to readjust herself, after perhaps a substantial number of years during which she has been caring for the home and for her family.
The third reason—and I believe that this is an immensely important one when we are dealing with an essentially human scheme like the National Insurance Scheme—is that there is a real sense of injustice on the part of these widows when they compare themselves with the

pensioned widow who may be living next door. They naturally ask themselves why they should get no pension and should have to go on paying contributions until they are 60, whereas another widow who may be in similar circumstances is getting a pension. The disparity under this Clause will be even greater between the two, because, in future, the widow who is getting a pension will no longer be subject to an earnings rule. So, in this respect, the sense of injustice will be increased.
There is one further reason which, I believe, strengthens the case for a change now in the age and that is that women are marrying younger. The only age group in which the proportion of women marrying actually rose between 1956 and 1961, the last year for which I could find figures, was the under-20 group. In every other age group the number was declining. We all know this to be true. Women are marrying younger and the Government Actuary's Report on the last quinquennial review estimates that the marriage rate of the age 20 or under group will be no less than 20 per cent. greater in 1973 than it is today.
It is also interesting that it is noted in this same Report that not only are women marrying younger, but they are having their families earlier. As a consequence of this, it follows that there will be a growing number of women whose children will be grown up before they themselves reach the age of 50. We all know of the phenomenon, these days, of the glamorous grandmother. Unfortunately, many of these women will be widowed. They will be faced with the prospect of trying to get a job and of going on paying contributions until they reach the age of 60.
These, I believe, are strong arguments for reducing the qualifying age for the permanent pension to the widowed mother. I believe that we should do the same for all widows, because the principle established in the 1956 Act of a uniform age for the permanent pensions for the widow was a sound one. I know I shall be told by the right hon. Lady that I am merely creating more anomalies. It is perfectly true that the woman who becomes widowed at the age of 44 years and 11 months or whose youngest child is then grown up, will feel the same sense of grievance as many feel at the age of 50 at the moment.
Wherever one draws a hard line like this, those who are on the wrong side of the line will feel a sense of grievance. If the arguments which I have put forward up to now carry any weight, it is at any rate something to reduce the number of widows who will be on the wrong side of the line, the older ones who will find these problems much greater than the younger ones.
Another thing which I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady or the Parliamentary Secretary will say, and which we have already heard in a number of speeches opposite, is, "Why not wait until the review?" My answer to that is that the right hon. Lady herself has not waited in dealing with the Bill. She is, after all, proposing to abolish the earnings rule for widows and to increase the 10s. pension to 30s., thereby creating additional anomalies within the widows' benefit arrangements. If this can be done in these two cases, surely there is no justification for saying that one should wait for the review in this case.
I regard this as very much a holding operation to help an important group of older widows who have a sense of injustice, which will be increased by this Bill and particularly by the abolition of the earnings rule for the widow next door, who is getting a permanent pension as well. I believe that the sooner we can rethink widows' benefits and the jungle of anomalies that there are within them, the better. Both sides of the Committee are committed to doing this.
The sooner we can help more effectively those who have suffered the great loss of their husbands, the better, but until these new proposals are ready to be put into operation, surely we can do something now by reducing the age qualification for the widowed mother and the other widows.

5.30 p.m.

Miss Herbison: As the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has said, these five Amendments are aimed at substituting an age condition of 45 for the present age condition of 50, both for the widow's pension and for the transition from the widowed mother's allowance to the widow's pension. The hon. Member made reference to some remarks which I made in 1956, when the previous

Administration decided to raise the age from 49 to 50 for the transition from the widowed mother's allowance to a pension, or to no pension. The remarks that I made at that time I still adhere to today.
The case made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North backs up the case which we made against the changes which were made by the Government in 1956. The first reason given by the hon. Gentleman was that a widow approaching the age of 50 finds it difficult to get a job, and that is very true. In 1956, a widow of the same age also found it difficult to get a job. His second point was that a widow close to 50 years of age found it difficult to readjust herself to a new way of life after spending many years at home caring for her family. That also obtained in 1956.
The hon. Member compared a widow receiving no pension with a widow who was obtaining a pension. I must remind him that that situation was the same in 1956. He argued that women are marrying younger and having children earlier. He made the point that children are no longer dependent on their mother and are often over 19 years of age before the mother reaches the age of 50, which means that a greater number of women are being denied a pension.
If we look at the figures we find that had the change not been made in 1956, the number of widows who would be receiving today a pension of £3 7s. 6d., or at 29th March of next year £4, is 10,000. As a result of the action of the Tory Government in 1956 they are receiving either nothing or 10s. I am glad that the hon. Member brought out all these difficulties of which we have been aware for so long.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would, I think, be critical of the present age limit, and we have been critical for a very long time. They would, I think, agree that the most severe criticism may be directed against the all or nothing nature of the present provision. The hon. Member for Somerset, North drew attention to the fact that there might be a great difference in the situation of two widows who were neighbours. Were the Amendment accepted this difference would still remain and there would still exist a grave sense of injustice. It is possible today for there


to be a widow, in receipt of a full pension of £3 7s. 6d., with a neighbour whose circumstances are exactly the same, the only difference being that she may be a few days younger and is, therefore, not entitled to a pension at all. That is the cause of the severe criticisms directed against the present arrangements. If the Amendment which has been moved and those which are being discussed with it are accepted there would still be this same ground for that severe criticism.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North said that their acceptance would reduce the number of widows on the wrong side of the line. It would still leave a large number with a very great sense of injustice. The hon. Gentleman observed that I might suggest that we should wait before doing anything until we have the review and he said that the very fact that the 10s. pension had been raised to 30s. had made a great difference. But it has not. In the Bill we are increasing the £3 7s. 6d. pension to £4. By regulations we proposed to increase the 10s. pension to 30s. This is to take care of the loss of value of the 10s. between 1948 and today. What we have done for the 10s. widow is completely in line with all the other matters contained in the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Dean: I was referring to the anomaly between the 10s. or 30s. widow and the no-shilling widow.

Miss Herbison: What we are doing will not make the position any worse and there is no reason for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should accept these Amendments and not wait until the review.
I have tried to show that the increase from 10s. to 30s. is in line with the increases we are making by virtue of the other provisions in the Bill in all the other National Insurance benefits, sickness benefit and retirement pensions, and also in the industrial injuries benefits. On a number of occasions in the last few weeks I have tried to make clear that the age condition and the other provisions relating to benefits for widows are among what I consider to be the more important matters which we have to examine in the course of the review of social security provisions. The review will have to cover many matters, including the position of the existing widow who has failed to qualify

under the present conditions. I remind the Committee that these widows number 10,000 more than would have been the case had the action taken in 1956 not been taken.
Another matter which will be given serious consideration is the substitution of a sliding scale of widows' benefits in place of the all or nothing condition. I am sure that in these modern times that is the only way to get rid of the grave injustice which exists at present.

Mr. Charles Curran: When this review takes place, will it be possible for outside organisations to give evidence, such as the National Council of Women?

Miss Herbison: Certainly. Then the review takes place, we shall be delighted to receive evidence from all those who are interested in these matters.
Another matter to which we must give consideration is the way in which widows should be treated in relation to their contribution liability and the conditions on which they may qualify for National Insurance benefits. I am sure hon. Members will agree that these are all matters of great importance and they must also agree that they are highly complicated problems. We wish to examine those problems and try to find acceptable solutions. I suggest again to the Committee that it would be prejudicial to the working out of a sensible and practicable approach to these matters if we made in isolation the one change proposed in these Amendments.
I hope that hon. Members will agree with the points which I have made and that these Amendments will be withdrawn, so that the matter may be left until the review does the job which so much needs to be done.

Dame Irene Ward: I have listened to the right hon. Lady with bewilderment. I never mind criticism of my own party. We made a tremendous amount of progress during our term of office, but I have heard her say repeatedly that this and that happened in 1956. Of course it happened in 1956, but my recollection is that the party opposite said that it was looking to the future and not to the past. Am I to understand that all that idealism of quick


action to deal with all these anomalies has now flown out of the window—

Mr. Bernard Taylor: Before the hon. Lady leaves that point—

Dame Irene Ward: I have not left it.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady was referring to the progress of the Conservative Administration. Did she call it progress when the age for the widowed mother was raised from 40 years to 50?

Dame Irene Ward: I will not be distracted—[Laughter.] It is no good everyone just shrieking with laughter. This may be very funny to hon. Members opposite, but not to the widows. It might be wiser if I were allowed to make my speech, though I am used to dealing with opposition from thousands, and I shall not be put off by a few hon. Members sitting on the Government benches.
I fully understand—and here I gladly reinforce what the Minister has said—that to deal with the whole range of provision for widows is a very complicated and difficult matter, but when she says that we were in power for 13 years my reply is that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends had 13 years in which to prepare their scheme against the time when they were elected to power. Certain matters can be dealt with while one is in opposition.
We were certainly led to believe during the General Election that all these plans were ready to be put into operation. Of course, it has not passed unnoticed that the whole idea of dealing with National Insurance matters has undergone a complete transformation since the Socialist Party took office, and discovered how impracticable some of its suggestions were. The country is deeply interested in these domestic matters, and the complete reversal of policy has been noticed.
It is extremely important to find out from the Minister the extent of the review. The right hon. Lady has just told my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) that she and her Department would be delighted to receive representations, but will the evidence given to the review be published? That sort of review would be in line with what the Conservative Party promised, and would do much to reassure both sides of the Committee. As it is, all we hear is

a reference to "when the review takes place".
Is it to be an inter-departmental review, or is it to be a departmental review? Does the right hon. Lady think that women's organisations will be satisfied with permission to send in their recommendations without the right to be heard in public? Nor will those who feel that there should be a really national public review be satisfied with a departmental review. Before we go any further with the Bill and the Amendments, I want to know exactly what the Minister has in mind about the review.
The right hon. Lady said a lot about the 10s. widow's pension being put up to 30s. She said that it was to make up for the increase in the cost of living and the fall in the value of the 10s., but what she failed to point out was that those widows who are to receive 30s. will have money to pay for their stamp in full, while the widows who do not get any money at all have to find the cost of the stamp out of their own resources. That is a very important point.
5.45 p.m.
I say quite frankly that I did not agree with my own Government on the age question—I have always been outspoken, and I shall continue to be so—but I must point out that in heavy industry areas such as those represented by the Minister and by myself, it is very difficult for women to find employment even at a younger age, but that for those who are widowed and have to try to return to work, the employment available is very small indeed.
My spirits rose when I thought that at least some of the things for which I have battled ever since I have sat in the House of Commons were to be achieved for widows. Had that been the case, I would have been quite willing to have given honour where honour was due—to the right hon. Lady and to her Government—but I find that all my ideas in that respect have gone by the board. Of course, I never really thought that the Socialist Party would implement its pledges.
The right hon. Lady spoke about the inadequacy of the machine that she inherited, but does she realise that the whole of this machine was the creation of the Socialist Party—

Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Sir Leslie. I appreciate that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) still thinks that she is a lady-in-waiting to Queen Anne, but is she in order in going as far as this from the Amendment, and wasting the Committee's time.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order, Sir Leslie. As the hon. Lady has already been allowed to refer to the machinery for the implementation of pensions, can I take it that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be quite free to develop the same kind of case?

The Temporary Chairman: As long as hon. Members, in developing their case, keep within the rules of order. I think that the hon. Lady was getting rather near the line.

Dame Irene Ward: Thank you very much, Sir Leslie. I do not wish to embarrass the Chair.
If the proposals in the Bill are to be put into effect, including those altering the position of widows, does the right hon. Lady think that all this will happen without a machine? It is ridiculous if I cannot refer to the machine through which these proposals, to which she referred, are to be put into effect.
The right hon. Lady has made time and again as a reason for our Amendments not being included in the Bill the claim that she inherited a bad machine. I resent that statement, because the headquarters of the Ministry is in my part of the country and it has a first-class machine. I dislike and resent her criticism of the machine intensely. The whole basis of the system was created originally by the Labour Government in 1948. If she has inherited a bad machine, then I remind her that her own Government created it at a time when they had an overwhelming majority.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady has now strayed from the rules of order. She is not entitled to make a Second Reading speech on the Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: I leave that point, Sir Leslie. I have made it. But the right hon. Lady must not resent the fact that my party wants to make progress.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] By our Amendment we want to make progress.
The Minister has referred to a review to be held. She has stated no time limit. Many widows will have been vitally affected by the present regulations if they continue for much longer. I want to know how long the review will take. Hundreds more anomalies will be created unless the Minister says when the review must be completed. There is no sense in the right hon. Lady saying that everyone must wait for a review. The party opposite never said that at the time of the election. The Minister must not complain if the Conservative Opposition challenges the promises made by the Socialist Party during the election.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: On a point of order, Sir Leslie. Surely the hon. Lady is out of order. We are discussing Amendments to the Bill, not the General Election.

Dame Irene Ward: I am discussing Amendments to the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. When I judge the hon. Lady to be out of order, I shall say so.

Dame Irene Ward: I am discussing the Amendments, which have been referred to by the right hon. Lady. Her only answer was that they would only create more anomalies. Yet when the present Government were in opposition they had plenty of opportunity to consider what they wanted to do. I have referred to the reduction of the age to 45 and to the increase for the 10s. widow which enables her to pay the stamp—and I am pleased about that. But the right hon. Lady has left many widows without consolation. I only ask her when we may expect her review to start, whether it is to be public and how long she thinks it will be before she accepts our proposals, about which she spoke sympathetically.
I am thoroughly disappointed that those who went to the country on the basis of proposals we now embody in these Amendments, and who promised the earth, are now unable to fulfil those promises because they cannot get the Treasury to agree to giving the necessary money.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: It would be unseemly


of me to make a personal speech. It is the last thing I want to do. But I must declare my interest. I must inform the Committee that, as a no-shilling widow for 11 years, I am amazed today by the hypocrisy of some speeches from hon. Members opposite and find them bitterly unacceptable.
In the 11 years that I have been alone I have not had one word from the Conservative Government either of hope or of encouragement towards the possibility of those widowed at the age of under 50 receiving any consideration from a Government who have been in power during a period of unparalleled affluence in the post-war history of the country. I observe that the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) is laughing. I do not know why she should.

Dame Irene Ward: I just commented, "Really", because the hon. Lady said that we were affluent.

Mrs. Jeger: I am trying to deal very seriously with what to many women is a deeply serious matter. It is very difficult to deal with this question of the age of the widow in isolation from many other factors. The Amendment suggests that, in certain circumstances, the widow's age of benefit should be reduced from the age of 50 to the age of 45. I think that there are powerful reasons why this should be done. I know that my right hon. Friend will consider these reasons. But I must ask the Committee to take cognisance of the other factors.
At present, it is not so that a widow over 50 is entitled to benefit. I have a friend who, at the age of 55, had a very delightful Indian summer romance. We were very happy when she married a man of 60. They were immensely happy together until one terrible day when, on his way home from work, he was knocked down and killed by a drunken driver. That lady gets no pension at all. She is over 50.
Her husband's stamp record was immaculate, but they had not been married quite three years. So her age did not matter and the impeccability of his stamp record did not matter, either. She was told that she must go to the National Assistance Board if she could not earn enough to keep herself. But she said, quite rightly, "I could have gone there if my husband had never bought a stamp in his life".
I mention this case to show that if we try to isolate all these factors of widowhood it is impossible to get a fair and full' picture. I know another widow, also over 50, who is receiving a tiny fraction of the pension because she was married to a rather inadequate specimen of manhood—which does happen, often to some of the nicest and kindest of women. Although this lady was over 50 when her husband died, she was unable to get her full pension because there was something wrong with his stamp record.
The basic problem—and this is why I support my right hon. Friend in waiting for the complete review—is that we have not decided whether a widow's pension is hers as of right as an insurance benefit, linked to her husband's stamp record, or whether it is a biblical outpouring of charity. Until we get that basic decision straight, and until we consider it in the light of all sorts of sociological factors, such as the increasing need for women of all categories to continue work in the present position of our society, we shall not get the picture right.
Basically, the widow's problem is her own. She has to come to terms with her life on her own. But it is for the Government to look at all these factors which can make it possible for some kind of social justice to be done. I submit very sincerely that more attention should be paid to the connection not between the widow's age and the circumstances of her widowhood, but to her husband's contribution record.
One reason why many widows who receive no pension at all feel a sense of injustice is this. One type of widow is told, though her husband may have paid his insurance contributions for 20 years, "You are under 50. This is not an insurance benefit. It does not matter how much your husband paid in. You cannot get anything." Another type of widow who is over 50, but whose husband's stamp records are not complete is told, "You cannot have anything, though you are over 50, because there is something wrong with your husband's stamp record." This suggests that there is a dichotomy in the situation which, to be fair, has persisted through both Administrations.
This is a question which we must all try to solve. I have spoken only because I think, though I have a great deal


of sympathy with the thoughts behind the Amendment, that it would not help those wham it is most essential to help to take the question of age in isolation. I am sure that I speak for many when I say that we must ask the Government for a comprehensive and fundamental review of this tangle of anomalies, injustices and muddles.

6.0 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) to the right hon. Lady to tell us more, if she refers to the inquiry, about what sort of inquiry is intended. The speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), and, indeed, of the right hon. Lady the Minister show that neither side of the Committee is satisfied with the varying provisions which are made or not made for widows. The only difference is that, whereas this side of the Committee, in its election manifesto, promised a comprehensive review of all social security provisions, with special mention of the varying provisions for widows, the Labour Party, during the election, made a number of detailed promises which it is not now fulfilling, but it has adopted our proposal for a review.
The right hon. Lady, well within her rights, spoke about the review. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth reflected in her questions the point expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) the other day, that the country expects the inquiry to be of a public nature; that is, an inquiry conducted outside the Department. It is not that anybody distrusts the integrity of the Department. It is simply that when a Department has been concerned in such detail for so long with problems it is perhaps better that outside people, open to public evidence, the evidence and the report being published, should conduct the inquiry.
I am merely asking that the right hon. Lady should at least tell us when she and her right hon. Friends expect to make an announcement about the inquiry, even if she cannot make that announcement today. We hope that she and her right hon. Friends will note that

we on this side of the Committee expect such an inquiry to be of the public character I have mentioned.

Mr. William Hamling: I am not sure whether I would be in order if I followed the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in speaking to these Amendments, because he did not speak to the Amendments. He followed the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in talking about a general review. Nevertheless, I will pursue one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He came down to the fact that the Conservative Party favoured the appointment of a Royal Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He stipulated an outside body with independent witnesses. What else would that be but a Royal Commission? How long would that have taken? Would it have taken another 13 years?
I remind the Committee that last January the House of Commons had an opportunity to do all the things covered by the Amendments. I will put myself in order by returning to the Amendments. Hon. Members opposite did none of those things. What we have witnessed this afternoon is a display of sanctimonious hypocrisy, with hon. Members opposite expressing concern for people whom they neglected for so long. When my right hon. Friend brings forward immediately after the election emergency legislation to deal with some of the immediate problems, the Conservatives have the impudence to make the sort of spurious speeches which have been made today.
Earlier this year the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) had the opportunity. In January there were Motions dealing with widows' benefits and with provisions for widows. The hon. Lady voted against them.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: So did the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward).

Dame Irene Ward: No, I did not.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Lady did. I will quote the exact debate, if the hon. Lady wishes. It was on 30th January, 1964. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth voted against an Amendment designed to effect certain


increases in widow's allowance, widowed mother's allowance and child's special allowance. So did the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. So did the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran). So did the whole of the Conservative Party.

Mrs. Thatcher: If we divided on this Amendment, would the hon. Gentleman vote with us?

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Lady has not scored anything.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hamling: I shall not vote with the hon. Lady, because the Amendment is not an honest one. If this had been honest, she could have done it in January.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should say that of hon. Members who have put their names to an Amendment. To suggest that such an Amendment is not an honest one is contrary to our traditions.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Hamling: I withdraw the words "is not an honest one" in this connection. I remind the Committee that the hon. Lady's intervention was intended to convey to the Committee that I was being dishonest and insincere. There were opportunities during the last 13 years to carry out every one of these Amendments. The Conservative Party failed to do so.

Mr. Norman Cole: I want to tell the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), so that he can identify me, that my constituency is South Bedfordshire. If he cares to look up the record to which he has referred—I think that we are talking about the same occasion—he will find that I—whether it is a criticism or the opposite I am not prepared to say—do not fit personally into the category he has just mentioned.
I and at least one, if not two, of my hon. Friends tabled an Amendment of the kind we are now discussing to the then Government's Bill earlier this year. Our Amendment sought to reduce the qualifying age not to 45, but to 40. The

hon. Gentleman will find, if he cares to consult the record, that I did not support the Government on that occasion in that matter. I am glad to be able to tell him that. I want to make it clear that I am not saying this by way of a personal explanation. I am pointing out that the hon. Gentleman should be very careful when he tries to analyse records.
If he consults the OFFICIAL REPORT he will also find that some of my hon. Friends and I were in favour of other measures being taken, some of which are being implemented in the Bill. I say this to show that at least I do not qualify for the accusation of hypocrisy as a result of anything I have done about the subject we are discussing. I have taken a quite unpolitical but personal and human view of the matter over the last 10 or 12 years. I shall continue to do so, irrespective of whether our party is in Government or Opposition.
I do not blame the Minister for saying that before she can take the matter further or accept Amendments of this sort she must await the outcome of the review. I support my hon. Friends in urging that the review should be as public as possible. Indeed, it might be in the interests of the Minister's party if it is public, so that not only widows but everyone else will see that the right hon. Lady intends justice to be done. I hope that the review will be as comprehensive, open and public as possible, with every possible piece of evidence being brought to light. I make that not as a political suggestion but as a reasonable and human one.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Why is it so essential that this inquiry should be public in view of the wealth of information already in the hands of the social services? The Minister and her advisers already have access to this information, so I cannot understand why it should be held in public.

Mr. Cole: I hope that that comment does not reflect the views of the party opposite. The simple answer is that it should be held in public for the reason that many of the provisions in the 1946 Act are out of date. Information may be in the hands of the Ministry, but that does not necessarily mean that all of it is up to date. Only if the review is held in public, with all possible evidence


brought into the open, will absolutely up-to-date information be available to the Minister. Parliament has a responsibility to the electorate and we should show that on a matter as important as this we are prepared to study everything in the open. Would that not add to the prestige of Parliament in the country?
There are two reasons why the review is vitally important. The first is that the Government are finding that being in Government is different from being in Opposition. We understand the Minister's difficulties, her having taken office only a few weeks ago. The second is that I suspect that, having seen the books, the right hon. Lady now realises even more than before—and I pay tribute to her knowledge of this subject—how complicated a matter it is.
The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) gave two examples of how widows can suffer as a result of the complicated procedures over this matter. Many other examples could be given and although only a relatively small number of widows may be affected, their plight should be ventilated and brought into the open.
I have a personal view which might not be incompatible with the terms of reference of the inquiry. For some time I have been wondering whether we are approaching this whole subject in the right way. May we not be taking the line of least resistance? It is convenient to say that if a widow is under 50 she will not qualify, irrespective of her husband's stamp record, while if she is over 50 she will qualify. We are all aware of the thinking behind that; it is assumed that at 47 one can get a job, if one is lucky, while at 52 one cannot. The regulation is that there must be a borderline age somewhere.
6.15 p.m.
In the Amendment earlier this year about which I was speaking the suggested borderline age was 40. In this Amendment it is 45. No one can say which is the right age. That being so, should age be the dictum of decision? After all, with a business insurance policy or an insurance fund, age does not arise if one has paid one's premiums. In a pension scheme there is no question of how long one has been married.
Is there not a chance that, for the sake of convenience, we have in the past been adopting the wrong premise? I am not suggesting that I have the answer. In a heavily industrialised area like that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) it might be better to consider this matter not in terms of age but in terms of a widow's capacity to get a job in the area. If I am told, "You cannot expect any committee to decide things like that" my answer is that we already have pensions tribunals, branches of the National Assistance Board and other organisations deciding very similar questions. I just want to be sure that we do not, for the sake of convenience, go on taking the line of least resistance.
I would like to give this matter a great deal of research. Widows should be treated in their own right as widows and, considering the wealth of the nation, there should be no delay in giving them financial sustenance. A woman gives up a lot when she marries. Often she severs her business connections and takes on a new kind of life. I do not care whether she is 33 or 53, if she suddenly meets widowhood and is completely financially unprepared, provision should be made for her, even if only on a temporary basis until she is able to rehabilitate herself.
These matters should be looked into by a tribunal. We should be certain that the age limit is as appropriate as it can be. The sooner we study these matters and get some results the sooner justice will be done. I support the Amendments because although they do not go as far as justice demands, they will be of great help. I regret that the Government, because of the review mentioned by the Minister, cannot accept them. The fact that there is a review is, I agree, a good reason why the Minister should say that the Amendments are not acceptable. She cannot be expected to anticipate the findings of the review.
I hope very much that the right hon. Lady will make her review as comprehensive and as public as possible. Its terms of reference should be as wide as can be devised. If she does that, I do hope that the results of the review will be analysed quickly and immediate action taken so that justice is done for all widows.

Mrs. Thatcher: Although we have had an interesting debate the situation is in some respects rather ironic. Were the Minister standing at this Box she would be congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) on the excellence of his speech and the rightness of his cause and would be urging him to take the matter to a Division. If I were standing at the Dispatch Box opposite I would also probably be congratulating my hon. Friend on his excellent speech, pleading the defence of the review and urging the Committee not to divide. I know that the right hon. Lady would like to do this if she could. I believe that the ideas which have been ventilated today show that there are very many ways in which widows could be helped and that we are not agreed on exactly the right way to help them. Some people want widows' benefits to be put on an entirely different basis and some want a change of age.
I hope that we can move on to the next Amendment, which gives us the chance to debate similar subjects on an even wider rule. I recommend, if I may be so presumptuous, that we do not divide on this Amendment in view of the assurance given by the Minister that she will consider this matter in her review.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Lady's party is in favour of a comprehensive review, It her mind is so set on all these Amendments, what possible things could this body about which she is talking review?

Mrs. Thatcher: It could review the basis of provision for widowhood and consider whether the present basis—the absence of earnings basis—is the right one, or whether widowhood itself should be the basis of widows' pensions. I shall have something to say about this matter on the next Amendment, which I believe will provide a more suitable opportunity for saying it.

Mr. Dean: I am disappointed with what the right hon. Lady the Minister has said. She accepts many of the points which have been put forward, but is not willing to concede the arguments which have adduced. However, I welcome her assurance that all widows' benefits, and particularly the various ages for the benefits, will have high priority in the review.
I wish to make one further comment. It is very unfortunate that every time hon. Members on this side propose further to improve National Assistance arrangements are accused of hypocrisy. Are we expected to abdicate our duty to try to go on improving the National Insurance Scheme as we have been doing over the last 13 years?
In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 13, at the end to insert:
(5) There shall be payable to a widow, who is aged thirty-two years or over, without prejudice to any benefit to which she may be entitled at any other age under this or any other enactment, a pension at the rate of thirty shillings a week.

The Temporary Chairman: It would be convenient if we also discussed new Clause No. 2 entitled "Four pounds a week for all widows":

(1) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of the National Insurance Acts 1946 to 1964, or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts 1946 to 1964, or any other enactment relating to any other benefit to which widows may be entitled under the conditions therein specified for the time being and at the rates currently in force all widows (whether or not qualified under the provisions of all or any of those enactments) shall be entitled to a weekly pension of not less than four pounds.
(2) The provisions of this section shall have effect without prejudice to benefits already payable under any of these Acts. These benefits shall remain payable in the terms and at the rates therein specified.

Mrs. Thatcher: This is yet another Amendment concerning the anomalies relating to widows' benefits. There have always been anomalies and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) said, there have been progressive improvements in the provisions for widows ever since the National Insurance Scheme started. Indeed, on one occasion I read out from the Dispatch Box a list of improvements which we had made year by year. It was an extremely impressive list.
The Amendment, however, relates to a new system which has been created by the several provisions of the Bill and regulations which will be laid subsequent to its passing. These provisions have


created a new, and, I think, a more pronounced, set of anomalies. May I illustrate this by a "before and after" situation.
Before the Bill, benefits under National Insurance were granted on the old Beveridge principle, namely, a widow was entitled to benefit if she could not be expected to support herself by her earnings. If she could be expected to support herself she did not receive any benefit, or, if she did support herself, her benefits were withdrawn. The whole basis of benefit under the National Insurance Scheme was that the widow could not be expected to support herself by her earnings.
There was one exception to that, namely, those who were married before 31st July, 1948, to men who were insured under the old scheme. They had a pension of 10s. a week—not very much, but no contributions have been paid since 1948 over and above the National Insurance contributions in respect of this old pension. In fact, the right to benefit has persisted all the time since 1948, although no special contributions over and above the National Insurance contributions have been paid since then. It has been an enormously long transitional provision the longest, I think, in history. Before that benefit was given in the absence of earnings with one small exception, namely, the 10s. widow.
Since the Bill, benefits cannot be said to be given on the ground of absence of earnings. Quite substantial benefits will be given under the regulations to be proposed regardless of whether there are earnings there or not. The former 10s. provision will be 30s., regardless of whether earnings are there or not. In addition, those who are over 50 when they are widowed or when they cease to have dependent children will get benefits, not in the absence of earnings but in addition to earnings, however great those earnings may be. Therefore, however difficult the dividing line was before, it is an even sharper and higher dividing line now.
Perhaps I can illustrate that with three examples. Take three ladies working next to one another on a factory bench. Suppose that one is over 50 and is earning, say, £8 a week. Because she is over 50 and because the earnings rule is being abolished under the Bill, she will get £8

a week plus £4 benefit and not have to pay a stamp. Suppose that next door to her there is a widow just under 50 who was married before 1948. She would get £8 a week plus 30s. benefit, and she would pay her stamp. Next door to her may be a third widow who is under 50, married after 1948, and who also earns £8 a week. She would get no benefit whatsoever and would pay a stamp. There could be a fourth widow who perhaps was not fit enough to work the whole time but was not sufficiently ill to get a doctor's certificate who would have precious little earnings but would get no benefit because she was expected to support herself by her earnings.
The justification for the Amendment is that a new set of anomalies has been created which increases the disparities by a considerable amount over those which existed before because there are much greater differences and the benefits can be paid in addition to substantial earnings. We could have a woman Member of Parliament—who, I understand, will get £3,250 if certain resolutions are passed—who, if she were widowed over the age of 50, would be entitled to draw her £4 widow's benefit, whereas the person just under 50, or whatever age we laid down, would not be entitled to draw benefit although her earnings were very slender.

Mrs. Jeger: Would the hon. Lady add to these contradictory situations the widow who has inherited a considerable estate, who is benefiting from a large unearned income and who is able to draw her pension with no deduction at all?

6.30 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: I entirely accept that. I am dealing with anomalies within the National Insurance Scheme, because under the scheme one gets certain benefits in return for certain contributions. I do not think anyone would say, in dealing with an insurance scheme which gives certain benefits in return for certain contributions—there could be no justification for saying—"You shall not get the benefits because you can afford to look after yourself." If one has a fire insurance and pays certain premiums and then one suffers a fire the insurance company does not turn round and say, "You are not going to get benefit because you can afford to do the repairs yourself." This is an insurance scheme, and I was dealing


specifically with anomalies which arise between contributors to that scheme, and I believe that those anomalies have been considerably increased.

Miss Herbison: I think the point that my hon. Friend was making is one anomaly which obtains at present. The hon. Lady has been giving a list of the different kinds of widows, perhaps working next to one another, with one over 50, and earning with full pension and no contributions paid, while another who has a full pension at the present time has had no earnings rule applied to her, no matter how great the unearned income. I think that is the point my hon. Friend was making. This will make no difference. That has always obtained, and we did not hear anything about it from hon. Members opposite before.

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, but the whole scheme is based on absence of earnings. One was insured against absence of earnings under the Beveridge system; not against absence of income, but against absence of earnings. This Bill is substantially increasing the anomalies as between contributors to the National Insurance Scheme—substantially increases the anomalies in the way I have indicated. If we look at the anomalies in the gross sense we find that the pre-1945 bride can, as I have already pointed out, I think three times, from this Box, draw some £1,800 more than the post-1945 bride for the same record of contributions. The anomaly there was to the extent of £1,200. Only a fool would say that the anomaly is not greater than a £600 anomaly. It is a £1,200 anomaly.
The case for this Amendment is really that it is a holding Amendment designed to reduce anomalies which have been created by this Bill, so that everyone over the age of 32, which is the youngest age at which we can get 10s., can get at least a basic pension of 30s., which would fit in with the right hon. Lady's conception of a sliding scale, and to some extent would soften the very harsh dividing line of 50 and over 50: the dividing line with, on one side, full earnings plus full pension, plus no stamp; on the other, few earnings, no pension and a stamp to pay.
We are also entitled to discuss the second new Clause, and, of course, undoubtedly the case for a review will

come up again. I think that women members of this Committee probably have more intensive ideas about the help which can be given to widows. There are a number of different opinions held, I know, about how best to provide for widows. I think the right hon. Lady and I would both agree with her comment on 30th January last, that the Labour Party, and the Conservative Party, officially realise that, as she said,
widowhood of itself should not give a right to pension".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 620.]
I agree that no party has yet officially adopted the thesis that widowhood of itself should give a right to pension.
I think that particularly some of the women Members may go further on this than some of the men Members. I always thought it very ironic that a wife should have a right to maintenance from her husband during his lifetime, that upon his death, and upon his leaving her nothing, and without a will, she has considerable rights to his intestate estate, that if he leaves a will but leaves his estate to someone else she can still probably get the will upset; that during his life she has a right to maintenance, that if he dies leaving her nothing the chances are she can get some of his estate, but she has no right whatsoever to compel her husband to make reasonable provision in the event of his death. I think, personally, that she should have that right under this Bill. I am speaking entirely personally from this Box, because I have not yet converted my party, any more than the right hon. Lady has converted hers, but I think that widowhood as such should be entitled to certain benefits. After all, under the old rules there were marriage settlements, there were wills which were automatically revoked by marriages, and all that was because with marriage there was a change of status and a change of commitment. I would put this view forcefully before a review body and put it publicly.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Houghton): Put it to me.

Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman is not much good. What I mean is that, I am sorry to say, I see not much point in talking to the right hon. Gentleman about it. However, I have


spent some time on this only to show how inconsistent is our attitude, in that we insist on a wife's maintenance during her husband's lifetime, we provide for her maintenance after his death, but we still have to get over the problem of compelling husbands to make certain provisions for their widows in the event of their death.

Mr. Cole: I am most interested in what my hon. Friend is saying and she knows that I support her on this, as I have indicated previously, but would she say that the state of widowhood by itself should be a qualification?

Mrs. Thatcher: I think that, if one accepts that it would be right to compel husbands to make basic provision for their widows, then I think the next step would be that the State should insist that they make this basic provision, and that one could, therefore, make some provision under the system for the state of widowhood. I do not want to dwell on this because I am rather lonely on this side of the Committee in this matter, though a number of people would agree with me about it.
This point was brought rather forcefully to our attention when the new "Everybody's Guide to National Insurance" was published. We in this Committee are used to National Insurance jargon, which means one thing to us but something rather different to people who are not used to the jargon. That document said:
The main National Insurance scheme pro-vides weekly flat rate cash benefits during sickness, unemployment, or widowhood, and on retirement.
Naturally, people think from that that the state of widowhood does attract benefits.
I am very anxious that this should be dealt with by a review. It goes right to the root and the basic principle of National Insurance. I know there are difficulties. Perhaps a young girl of 19 who is widowed should not have the right to a pension for the rest of her life. On the other hand, perhaps she could receive some benefit; perhaps not very much. This is fundamental to a review, and I hope that it will be inquired into.
The reason for the Amendment which I am moving, rather than the one I have

been discussing, it to reduce the anomalies till such time as a review body has reported.

Mr. Curran: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and also to say something about the new Clause in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward). We are proposing this change in respect of the widow who is 32 or over because the Bill as it stands does intensify and multiply the anomalies in the treatment of widows. There is, of course, a wide range of anomalies.
Take the 10s. widow. Should she continue to get 10s. in spite of the change in the value of money? The answer is that she ought to get more. But we cannot look at her in vacuo. We have to recognise that, so far as the ordinary citizen is concerned—certainly so far as the ordinary woman is concerned—what we are doing for the 10s. widow intensifies the absurdity of the rules we make about widows.
We must make up our minds whether we are going to stick to the Beveridge assumptions or whether we are not. The Beveridge assumptions were that widowhood as such should create no claim to benefit and that all social benefits should be paid as a substitute for loss of earnings. If you could not earn because you were too old, or because you were sick, or because you were injured, or because nobody would employ you, then because you could not earn you had a right to benefit. But, said Beveridge, widowhood as such did not and should not confer a right to benefit.
This was not the view taken in this country before the war. The Act under which the 10s. widow benefited was an Act which said that widows in certain circumstances should get benefits because they were widows. Since then we have gone further. We have conferred on other classes of widows a right to get pensions, because they are widows. We have given a pension to the war widow and also to the widow whose husband is killed in an industrial accident. Consequently we now have four classes of widows in this country. There is class one, the 10s. widow now to become the 30s. widow, who gets


a pension because she is a widow. Then there is class two, the war widow, who gets a pension because her husband has died in action. Then there is class three, the widow who gets a pension because her husband has died in an industrial accident. Then we get class four, the great mass of widows who do not come into those other classes and who are denied pensions. It is to this difference that I want to address myself.
I have been re-reading the Beveridge Report. It is very interesting now to look back on it and to find what Beveridge decided—that widowhood as such should not create a claim to benefit under the National Insurance Scheme. He said that after an extensive review of the arguments submitted to him. He did not come to this conclusion in a hurry. He filled several pages of his Report with an examination of the arguments for and against. In the index he printed a long list of witnesses who came before him to give evidence—including, I suppose, evidence in reply to the question, "What should be our attitude towards widows?"
It seems to me that the example of Beveridge is an example which the Government ought to follow in setting up their review. Beveridge did take evidence, he did have the matter thrashed out in front of him, and he did come to certain conclusions about what our first principles should be in the treatment of widows. There is nothing sacred about those first principles of his. Nothing at all. I do not see why the Government or any kind of departmental inquiry, or intramural inquiry, should decide what should be our basic principles about widows. This is a matter for national decision. It is a matter of far greater importance than Government. After all, the present Government will not be there for ever. Whatever decision is now taken about our treatment of widows it will govern us much longer than the present Government will govern us.
6.45 p.m.
I very much question the Beveridge assumption that widowhood should not break a claim to benefit, and I cannot help thinking that we should abandon it, and, finding anomalies, that we should abandon them. No matter how we try to

work inside the Beveridge doctrine that we shall pay benefits only for loss of earnings and not for loss of a husband, we are bound to have anomalies as fast as we remove one anomaly, we create another. I believe that we must abandon the Beveridge doctrine. We must say, plainly and flatly, that widowhood as such does and should create a claim to benefit. In saying that, I believe that I say something with which the great mass of our people will agree. Certainly whenever I have expressed myself on this matter in public—and I have done so inside the House and outside it—I have found that ordinary women endorse this view.
Looking back, I find it difficult to understand why Beveridge did not adopt it As far as I can gather—this is not based directly on the Report but on the climate of opinion which accompanied the Report—it must have been a sop to the theory of sex equality: that as we do not pay pensions to widowers, we should not pay them to widows either. Now when a man loses his wife, he cannot come to the State and ask the State to support him because he has lost his wife. If he did that he would be told promptly and probably profanely to stop snivelling and do some work. Well, we put the married woman who loses her husband in very much the same position as the man who loses his wife. But this does not correspond to the realities of every-day life.
In spite of sex equality, it is idle to suppose that getting married is the same for a woman as it is for a man. In spite of sex equality, it is still true that for most women getting married is a career and that when a woman loses her husband she suffers an economic as well as an emotional disaster. It is an economic blow to her in rather the same way as losing his job is an economic blow to a man. I believe that we should recognise this fact here, just as I believe that it is recognised by ordinary men and women outside the House. At present we do not recognise it.
We must not permit ourselves to be spellbound by the doctrine of sex equality. There is a difference. It may be argued, and perhaps it may be plausible, in Hampstead, Chelsea or Bloomsbury, to say that the sexes are equal and that since we do not give pensions to widowers we


should not give them to widows. But this makes no sense at all in Coronation Street, on the mass level. Coronation Street believes that when a woman gets married she enters into an economic as well as an emotional alliance and that she looks to the economic alliance for support When that support is withdrawn, she is entitled to compensation. The State should recognise the loss of a husband in exactly the same way as it recognises the loss of a job as creating a claim for benefit.
If we say this, I know that we shall face, not anomalies but certain consequences which may sound absurd. If we say that widowhood as such creates a claim for benefit, we shall be asked, "Do you propose to give pensions to teen-age widows for the rest of their days or as long as they remain widows?" We must accept that whatever we do will be open to criticism. We must make up our minds broadly what is our basic principle. We have already tried one basic principle and it has produced a crop of anomalies so large and so overwhelming that the great mass of the British people are sick of them. We must now turn to a different basis. We must accept it that when we do, then we shall create, I will not say anomalies but some seeming absurdities. We must put up with that.
Meanwhile, by giving 30s. a week to the 10s. widow the Bill intensifies an anomaly. I hope that the Government will recognise this and will also recognise that the no-shilling widow will feel all the more indignant when this change takes place. I urge the Government not to say to the no-shilling widow, "We admit that you are being very hard done by, but you must wait until there is a review." We are legislating now and making changes in the National Insurance Scheme, now I suggest that we ought now to make this further change.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: It is difficult to discuss this Amendment without getting into deep philosophical water. I appreciate the feeling expressed in the serious speeches made by the hon. Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and Uxbridge (Mr. Curran). In my experience the majority of men in this country—and let us talk about the men for a moment—honestly feel that when they buy their National Insurance stamp, which will

soon cost them more, they are insuring their wives against widowhood. They may be wrong, but the sense of shock and surprise which these women feel when, being widowed, they go to the Ministry of Pensions and find that they have not an automatic benefit is considerable.
I agree with very much that was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley—that there should be some automatic insurance provision against the problems of widowhood. Most men think that they are making that provision already. Hundreds of thousands of working men cannot afford to pay any more than the price of the National Insurance stamp, with the increase in the contribution which is to be made. I should prefer to see a situation in which the widow was brought within the National Insurance provisions on similar lines to those by which a widow gets benefit from an insurance policy which her husband took out commercially. Another anomaly which we are creating is that a woman whose husband during his lifetime was able, in addition to the National Insurance contribution, to pay for a commercial insurance policy for her, finds herself in an infinitely better position than does a widow whose husband was able to afford only the National Insurance contribution.
The review body will do very well to look at the question of relating benefits not to loss of earnings but to contributions in the same way as has become traditional and acceptable in normal insurance practice. The result would be that a young widow under 32, the age in the Amendment, who had not been married very long and whose husband had a very short insurance contribution record, would get some benefit but not as much as that laid down generally. It would be a sum related to the number of payments which he had made. That is the only way which seems to me to be fair over the wide range of circumstances with which we have to deal.
I am conscious that in trying to make some improvements for widows, no matter what their age, we are forgetting the circumstances in which many women find themselves who have not even had a few years of married happiness and who may be trying to bring up children on their own because their husbands have left them. There is the problem of deserted


wives left with children and of the common law wife who does not always find it easy to collect the benefit after the death of the man with whom she has been living for many years. That is why I feel that, accepting much of the spirit of the Amendment, we shall do much better not to make a decision today but to relate these matters to the wider issue of the National Insurance benefits in respect of widowhood.

Mr. Cole: The Amendment is needed to fill a gap which, with the best will in the world, has been created by the Act. The review will have to decide whether we still adhere to the principle laid down by the Beveridge Committee on the subject of qualification for benefit by widowhood per se without there being any insurance background. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) gave the views on sex equality as a possible reason for the decision taken by Beveridge. With great respect, I differ from him. I doubt whether that was very much in the minds of the Committee at the end of the war. I think that we are still working towards an up-to-date philosophy.
May I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) that it is less than 30 years ago that the law decided that a man, on his death, had to leave a certain minimum sum—which has since been increased—to his wife. From memory, I think it is £5,000.

Mrs. Thatcher: If a man dies intestate his widow is entitled to the first £5,000 if there are surviving issue or to the first £20,000 if there are no surviving issue.

Mr. Cole: A man cannot leave the whole of his estate away from his wife. He must leave a minimum sum to her. This follows a case in which a widow was left nearly destitute. The paramount view before the war and during the war, and one can only guess that the Beveridge Committee had the same kind of idea, was that a woman should have a right, once she became a widow, to some kind of emolument from the State only if there was a proper insurance background. All these years afterwards—18 years afterwards—we are still working towards the objective which I am sure one day we shall reach, of a widow qualifying in her own right as a widow, an objective which

is hinted at, in the new Clause, whereby a widow would receive £4 a week, or, as in the Amendment, provided that she was over 32 years of age she would get 30s. a week.
I probably go as far as. if not further than, any other hon. Member in the Committee when I say that there should be no kind of qualification to benefit in these cases than the fact of being properly married and then being widowed. I am not a bit worried about the problem of young widows. Very young widows already qualify for compensation in some fields and the State manages to deal with that problem. We could look again at the position which would arise if they married again. But we do not want to rule out the possibility of a law which could help so many widows merely because in a few cases it might work out in a rather unusual way. That would not be a good policy.
7.0 p.m.
I welcome the Amendment and the new Clause which seek to provide a pension for widowhood. I think that we are only touching at a principle. I hope that before the Committee is very many years older we shall be able to reverse the Beveridge enunciation about widowhood. I think that we are pushing at an open door. After all, there is not one married woman in this country who might not next week find herself, if she were widowed, in quite a different situation, if such a law existed. I think that this is little enough for us to do for widows.
There are all sorts of special State provisions for emergencies occurring to various people, but here we seem to have come into a blank. I think that it probably stems from those immediate post-war decisions on which a lot of our Welfare State is based. The time has come to break them up, and to think about them all again.
A married woman is still not regarded as the breadwinner. She may be one of the two, but more often than not she is not so regarded, especially when she has to bring up the family. When she marries, she severs herself from the business world. She takes on a new and very proper kind of life which is different from that of the business world. Suddenly, on widowhood, she is


transferred back into it, with the need to earn money, unless she qualifies under the present limited insurance arrangements. This is wrong. This is nothing to be proud of.
I hope that this review—and I am sure that it will if it takes note of the representations made to it—will reverse the Beveridge Committee's doctrine which I believe has coloured all our thinking ever since. I hope that the review will strike a new blow at these anomalies. These anomalies have existed for the last 18 years because we have not accepted the new principle. I welcome the Amendment and the new Clause. They show the way the straws are blowing, and I hope that we shall get a good wind of change about this.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I intervene to stress the complexities of this problem. We all listened with great interest to the logical exposition of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). This is the first time that I have heard this case argued, and it takes my mind back to many years ago when I heard the opposite one argued.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) surmised that it was a theory of sex equality which weighed in the consideration of the Beveridge Report and its adoption. That was my impression of those days. There was the new woman. She was very proud, and she did not want to be supported, at least in intellectual circles. It has been my experience all through that the new woman is not exceedingly numerous, and that the average woman wants to be supported. She feels that, having embarked on this great enterprise and career of marriage, having interrupted any other possible career that she might have made for herself—and goodness knows there is enough intelligence and ability amongst members of my sex to make great careers for themselves—she is entitled to some provision in respect of widowhood.
I am interested, too, in another type of person who is a widow, but who in law is not. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) talked about people who were properly married. I have had a sad case brought to my notice. I do not think that the

Minister can do anything about it, because the law will not allow her to do so. This woman had been married, as she supposed, for more than 40 years, and had a family. She drew a pension for 12 years after her husband died. Suddenly it was discovered that her husband had been married before, that he had lived with his wife for eight months, and had a child by her. The result was that this woman's pension was stopped. This is the kind of thing which any review must take into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) talked about deserted women. Is not desertion by a husband parallel to widowhood? These things, too, have to be considered.
There is a consolation for those who think that the cost of this help may be something which we cannot manage, that the good we do will not be commensurate with the burden. I think that the number of young women is decreasing, while the number of men is increasing, with the result that there is a better prospect of these young widows remarrying. Thus, actuarially, it may be possible to compute that an undertaking of this kind will not be as expensive as is now thought.
The extraordinary thing about the Beveridge situation was that everybody talked about getting older people off the market by encouraging them to retire at an earlier age—as the Committee knows we are making provision for people who postpone their retirement a little—whereas widows were practically forced to go on to the market. The curious situation today is that we want everybody on the market.
In the light of these facts, and modern developments, a review is long overdue. I think that when the Minister makes her review she will be grateful for the frankness of opinion which has been expressed by both sides of the Committee. We may not be able to hope for everything that we would like, but I am sure that great regard will be paid to the views which have been expressed.

Dame Irene Ward: We have had a most interesting discussion, and so many points of view have been put forward that I hope we have convinced the right


hon. Lady that it should be a comprehensive and public review.
I support both the Amendment and the new Clause. I want to make one additional contribution which I think will add to the general picture. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) in what he said about the new Clause, but I disagree with him, if I may put it that way, over his assessment of the reason for the Beveridge decision on widowhood.
My mind runs back to just before the outbreak of the Second World War when there was tremendous feeling among the working spinsters of the country that there were too many very young widows drawing pensions for the rest of their lives, or until they remarried.
I remember that at the time there was a society which was formed in Bradford. It was run by a very active woman called Miss Florence White. I can see the Central Lobby filled with working spinsters. Miss White was campaigning for spinsters' pensions at 60, which was achieved in the end, and then she campaigned for spinsters' pensions at 55. There is no doubt that the fact that there were very young widows receiving pensions, while many hardworking spinsters, a number of whom were supporting aged parents, did not receive pensions, caused a good deal of controversy between the married and the unmarried sections of the community.
At that time also we had that vivid House of Commons personality, Miss Eleanor Rathbone, whom we all remember with great affection for her ability and courage. She was campaigning—and she was successful in the end—for family allowances. That in a way rather exacerbated the division betwen the married women or the widows and the spinsters.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree with me that very often in discussing all these matters, we find that the older people disapprove of the family allowances, which they think should go to help the retired pensioners, and the younger section of the community who are bringing up families feel that it is tremendously beneficial to them to have the family allowance.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): We cannot discuss family allowances on this Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: I shall not discuss family allowances on this Amendment, but I am pointing out that in relation to widowhood, and the elderly widow and the young widow, which is very much a part of the Amendment and the new Clause, the whole situation was exacerbated by these outside developments which were a feature of the 1930s up to the beginning of the war, and which, I think, played their part in forming Lord Beveridge's opinion on widowhood, which he embodied in the Beveridge Report.
When I hear the various assessment of the thoughts of Lord Beveridge in producing his Report I feel that the picture would not be complete if I did not add—as I knew Lord Beveridge quite well—that I have a suspicion that when he was considering his Report his mind was to some extent conditioned to the feeling that existed between the spinsters working and looking after aged parents and the young widows, now called the teen-age widows, who draw that very small pension of 10s. for the rest of their lives.
I think that the picture would not be complete unless I put that aspect of it into the contributions that have been made by so many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I thought that Lord Beveridge, in producing his Report, took this new approach to widowhood, which has given us a variety of anomalies.

Mr. Curran: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she can give a contemporary testimony of what Lord Beveridge believed. I would draw her attention to two sentences—there is an interval between them—from the Beveridge Report, and they are the key to his attitude on this matter. Lord Beveridge wrote:
There is no reason why a childless widow should get a pension for life; if she is able to work, she should work.
A little later, he said:
Permanent provision for widowhood as such, irrespective of the care of children and of need, is a matter for voluntary insurance by the husband".
I think that gives his point of view pretty finally.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, but the first sentence


that he read out, that a young widow without children should not be entitled to a pension, derived from the fact that there was this controversy with the spinsters, who felt that they were in the same position as the young widows.
I always find myself trying to support any section of the community where I think an injustice or an anomaly occurs irrespective of whether they are widows, married women or spinsters. It is well to remember that even today, whatever we try to do for widows, it is very difficult to get comprehensive treatment for all the injustices, even with all the efforts made both by the Conservative Government and by the Socialist Government when they were in power before their defeat in 1951.
I think that this adds to our request that there should be a public, comprehensive review because so many people over a very wide field have experience of these matters, including those referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet)—the deserted wives. There is so much experience that it would be a great pity if a review, however honestly and sincerely undertaken, was purely Departmental and the country could not have the benefit of the evidence and the experience that would be put in if a comprehensive review were undertaken.
7.15 p.m.
I regret the anomalies. I think that the 10s. widow will feel very much happier as a result of the Government's action, and I am always pleased when people are made happy. It is very important in life. But there are a great many people who will be both aggrieved and frustrated. Therefore, it would help every one on both sides of the Committee if the right hon. Lady would tell us when she expects to be able to anounce to the House the review and the type of review. I hope that she will bear in mind that we emphasise these anomalies for the purpose of getting action, and that we shall have a comprehensive statement from the right hon. Lady before we part with this Amendment and the new Clause and, indeed, the whole of the Bill.

Miss Herbison: This has perhaps been the best debate we have had in Committee on the Bill. It has certainly been very wide ranging. The hon. Member

for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made it range widely in the points that she made. It is important that on this question of provision for widows generally we should hear the points of view of as many people as possible. Perhaps it is a good thing that these Amendments have given an opportunity to so many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to put their points of view.
I come back to the Amendment and to the new Clause. I shall first let the Committee know what we feel about the Amendment. It is defective in drafting in several respects, but I make no fuss about that. Nor do I stress it. Because not so very many weeks ago I was on the benches opposite, trying to draft Amendments myself without expert help and I resented it when a Minister made great play with the fact that Amendments I had put down were not in the proper language.
The hon. Lady in making her case seemed to stress to the Committee that by raising the 10s. pension to 30s. we were making a fundamental change in the whole provision for widows' pensions. But that is not the case.

Mrs. Thatcher: That, coupled with the abolition of the earnings rule, means that we are giving widows' pensions on two separate bases, one for widowhood and one for the absence of earnings.

Miss Herbison: I will deal first, with the earnings rule. We have decided to abolish it for widows. There is no fundamental change in that direction, and I will tell the hon. Lady why. When my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) intervened, she raised the case of the widow in respect of whom no earnings rule was applied because she had a sufficiently large unearned income, possibly, to live in comfort. The hon. Member for Finchley, in dealing with that point, said that insurance applied to earnings and not to income from some other source.

Mrs. Thatcher: Or the absence of earnings.

Miss Herbison: Exactly—or the absence of earnings.
I now come to the case of widows to whom, before we made this suggestion, no earnings rule was applied. The war


widow receives a full pension. She can earn as much as she likes without having the rule applied. The industrial injuries widow is in the same position. She receives a pension as of right, and no earnings rule is applied. It is clear that the case put forward by the hon. Lady cannot stand. There is no fundamental change in doing away with the earnings rule and in raising the 10s. pension to 30s.

Mr. Curran: Surely something fundamental is involved here. The basic principle of the National Insurance Act is that benefits are paid instead of earnings. That is one reason for the earnings rule. People have no right to receive benefits and also earnings. We penalise them if they do. That is not my reasoning; it is Beveridge reasoning. If they draw the benefit and go on earning, in one sense they are breaking the rule. Is not that one reason for the rule?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member has not listened to my explanation of the present situation. What I have tried to prove is that the Bill merely extends certain existing provisions, but makes no fundamental change.
The increase from 10s. to 30s. makes no change at all in the condition of the payment of widows' benefits under the National Insurance Acts. All those who qualify now for the 10s. pension—which is to be raised to 30s.—at one time had an expectation of receiving an unconditional pension under the old contributory pension legislation. The "no-shilling" widows—which are the ones covered by the Amendment—at no time had that expectation, either because their husbands were not insured under those Acts or because marriage took place after those Acts were superseded. Their position is, therefore, quite different.
There is no logic in the argument that if there is an improvement in a benefit paid to a person who enjoys a reserved right—and that is what the 10s. pension is—there must be a corresponding improvement for those who have no such reserved right. Let me take the hon. Lady's memory back to 1957, because this is important from the point of view of the case she made. The Government then raised the age in respect of the

transition from widowed mothers' allowance to widows' pension from 40 to 50. But they retained the 40 years age limit in respect of widows who were widowed before 1957. The limit was raised to 50 years in respect of future cases.
What happened to those who had this right before 1957? In 1956, the benefit was 40s. It has been raised on three occasions since, and is now 67s. 6d. But no change has been made in the position of those widows who did not qualify for this concession—and 10,000 of them have been created since 1957. If the hon. Lady had been using the same logic, these 10,000 widows would have had the benefit of the improvement from 40s. to 67s. 6d. It seems to me that the two cases are similar.
I now turn to the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran). This would give a pension of £4 a week to all widows, irrespective of age. No conditions are attached about contributions, age, duration of marriage, or even residence in this country. It is clear that at this stage it would be impossible for the Government to accept this proposal.
I have given what I consider to be the logical reason for the rejection of the Amendment. That does not mean that we are not concerned about any widow who is in financial difficulties. It was impossible for us to do everything in the Bill. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said that all our idealism had flown out of the window and that this was a complete reversal of our policy. Later, we may be able to go over all that we have achieved in the Bill—we have not yet done everything, but we have made great steps forward in many directions.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North—East (Sir K. Joseph) said that we had not fulfilled the detailed promises we had made in the documents we published beforehand. Election day was seven weeks ago today, and I would remind the whole Committee of the many promises that we are carrying out in the Bill.
I come back to one reason why I am going to ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her Amendment and the hon. Member for Uxbridge not to move his new Clause.


This is not the time to make either this change, which would be applicable to all widows of 32 years and over, or the wide and sweeping change proposed in the new Clause. Speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in respect of this and the previous Amendment show that these are very complicated matters, involving problems to which there may be various solutions, which require very careful examination. Since that is the case, it would be much better for this to be left, as I asked the last ones to be left, until this review.
There has been insistence from the other side that we reveal the nature of this review and that we give the date when an announcement will be made. I cannot give the Committee the exact date. What I can tell the Committee is that we regard not only these questions of the provision for widows, but the whole of our social security structure, as of such importance that there will be real urgency in this review.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: Could the Minister tell us the number of widows who would be involved under this new Clause? It is of great interest to those who want to study this matter further.

Miss Herbison: It is impossible for me to give the numbers.
Is this £4 to go to the 10s. widow? Is the 10s. pension to be raised to £4? What of those who are getting nothing? Are they to have the £4? I could not give the full number, but it would be very large indeed. I ask that the Amendment and the new Clause be withdrawn so that these things can be examined, as I am sure the whole Committee wants them to be examined, and solutions that will be acceptable found to the problems.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Minister knows from what I have said that I am very anxious that the no-shilling widows should get something; and the sooner the day the better. I have no hesitation in putting the increased cost directly on contributions. I recognise, however, the force of what she said, and I will make just one point before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment. A big review of the structure of all the social security services must be complicated and of a

kind which will take several years. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will not."] People are always very optimistic, when they have not been in the Department, about how long it takes to implement the changes recommended by a big structural review.
The review for widows could be a very much shorter matter, and would take in industrial injuries widows and war widows, whom I specifically did not refer to in my speech, which was confined to National Insurance widows. I ask that the widows' review should come quite separately and rather quickly and should report in advance of the major review on the structure of the social security services.
Having received the right hon. Lady's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 26, at the end to insert:
(6) In section 4(2) of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1964 (which relaxes the earnings rule in respect of retirement pensions) for the words "one hundred shillings" there shall be substituted the words" one hundred and twenty shillings" and for the words" one hundred and twenty shillings" there shall be substituted the words "one hundred and forty shillings".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): With this Amendment can also be considered Amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 26, at end insert:
(6) For the words "one hundred shillings" in section 4(2) of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1964, there shall be substituted the words "one hundred and forty shillings" and for the words "one hundred and twenty shillings" in the said subsection, there shall be substituted the words "one hundred and eighty shillings".

Mr. Dean: I will only detain the Committee for a short time in moving this Amendment, the object of which is to increase the amount which the retirement pensioners can earn, without deduction of earnings, from the present limit of £5 to £6. I have great sympathy with the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) has down which would, in effect, take the bite out of the earnings rule altogether. We all recognise that the earnings rule is widely misunderstood and resented.
I hope that in this review the earnings rule and the problems which it creates will be some of the things which will be


considered. I hope that in the interests of a scheme which people feel is fair, and also in the interests of gradual retirement, which I am sure we all want to encourage, it will be possible, in the review, to find a way out of the difficulties which, I admit, exist at the moment for the abolition—the cost and other things.
In the meantime, there is one imperative need for this proposal which we are putting forward and which is very moderate from the point of view of costs. Surely, if we are to abolish the earnings rule for the widow—I am not for one second complaining about it—the resentment felt by the retirement pensioner against this rule will be equally as great as is the resentment felt by the widow. If we are to abolish the one, surely it is only reasonable and right that we should relax the rule for the others.
This is my main reason for proposing this Amendment. I understand, from the answer to a question which I asked the right hon. Lady the other day, that this Clause would involve a comparatively modest charge for the sum we are dealing with of about £400,000 a year. There are many other arguments which I could put, but I do not want to detain the Committee any more than to say that this reason, above all others, is an exceedingly imperative one. I am encouraged, because the right hon. Lady said that she would be prepared to consider what the right level should be at any one time for the earnings rule for the retirement pensioner. I hope it will be possible for this at least not to have to wait for the review, but for this modest and reasonable Amendment to be accepted.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I interpret this Amendment, and certainly the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of my colleagues, as an attempt to go one step further towards the abolition of the earnings rule in its entirety, so far as it relates to retirement pensioners. It is on that basis and with that in mind that the Amendment in my name and those of my colleagues was put down and it is on that basis that I support the Amendment which has just been moved. We have in this Bill the provisions for the abolition of the earnings rule for persons who are in receipt of widowed mothers'

allowance and persons who are in receipt of widows' pensions, but it leaves quite untouched the position of the person in receipt of a retirement pension.
It is, of course, right to say that from 1946 onwards this earnings rule has, in one form or another, been eroded, not only in relation to widows but also in relation to the retirement pensioner. For example, if I remember rightly, what is now the 100s. ceiling was in the 1964 Act originally 50s. I think I am right in saying that 50s. was the initial figure, but I am subject to correction on this matter. Whether it was 50s. or 40s., certainly there has been a change, which is an eroding of the earnings rule, at least to some degree. I would not be entitled to develop this, but in my view the only really valid argument against the complete abolition of the earnings rule at present is the cost involved. That is to say, the money which would be required, well over £100 million, could be better employed in helping other aspects of our National Insurance Scheme.
I wish to stress that we are dealing with a group of people whose number will increase. The people at present on retirement pension number approximately 6 million. By the end of the century that figure will be 8¼ million. The figures are even more remarkable in the case of men retirement pensioners, of whom today there are approximately 2 million. Within 25 years there will be over 3 million. The numbers will increase substantially up to 1980 and very substantially throughout the period to the end of the century.
I was intrigued by the arguments advanced during the Committee stage discussions on the 1964 legislation relating to an Amendment designed to abolish the earnings rule for widows. This Amendment was resisted by the then Government in January of this year. The argument advanced by the then Minister was—he was dealing with anomalies which would arise if the earnings rule for widows was abolished and comparing their position with that of spinsters—
I believe that the only way out of this dilemma is to abolish the earnings rule for retirement pensioners as well.
The Minister went on to say:
Nevertheless, for reasons which I have tried to give today, I believe that it would


be hopeless to try to maintain an earnings rule for retirement pensioners if the earnings rule for widows' benefits were abolished."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 593.]
The Minister came down against the abolition of the earnings rule in relation to widows, but he was saying in substance that if we are to abolish the earnings rule for widows, it would be unthinkable not to proceed further and abolish it for persons in receipt of retirement pensions.
So far as I know, the Opposition will not oppose that part of this Bill which relates to the abolition of the earnings rule—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall be surprised if they do, but it is remarkable what a change in location can do in a period from January to December.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman care to tell the Committee which position surprises him most, the position which the Opposition is going to adopt, as he says, today, or the decision which it took on the comparative question when hon. Members opposite formed the Government? Which does the hon. and learned Gentleman think the more surprising of the two?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I live in a world of surprises and I am not going to be drawn into trying to determine the varying degrees of surprises. It is clear that there has been some repentance in this regard, which I welcome, and I would like it to be carried to its logical conclusion, at least according to the views of the then Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
The earnings rule was introduced by the Labour Party, mainly, I believe, because it was feared that retired pensioners would otherwise provide a source of cheap labour, that is to say—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: No.

Mr. Bowen: Certainly that was one of the reasons. If a person who had retired and was drawing a full pension was available for employment, it was feared that employers would take advantage of that situation and pay the kind of wages which they would not have paid were the recipients not drawing a pension.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not the hon. and learned Member think that the main reason was that in the days when that legislation was introduced we were all under the incessant memory of long periods of mass unemployment, and it was considered that it ought to be made strictly a retirement pension in order that a contribution should be made towards relieving the still present fear of mass unemployment? Fortunately, this has diminished or disappeared since, but I think the reason why the pension was made a retirement pension in the first place was as a form of contribution towards the task of abolishing mass unemployment.

Mr. Bowen: I do not in any way dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said; that was certainly a factor. I reiterate that I believe a relevant factor was the fear of retirement pensioners being used as a source of cheap labour. No doubt both factors played a part.
In my view, the situation has changed substantially both in relation to unemployment and the danger of victimisation. I do not believe that the same force should be given today to those factors as was given, when the earnings rule was introduced. A continued erosion of this earnings rule would be bringing in line the position of the retirement pensioner with that of the war pensioner and those in receipt of industrial injury benefit. It would do away with the substantial anomaly, that in assessing the entitlement to a retirement pension, independent income is ignored. A person who is dependent on an additional income is placed in an adverse position in relation to a person who has an earned income.
I believe, as was mentioned in the intervention of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), that what gave rise to the earnings rule was the idea that a pension should not be given unless a person was retired. I think it high time that we approached the matter from the point of view that a person who, by reason of years of productive work for society, and after satisfying the statutory provisions in relation to contribution, is entitled to receive a retirement pension. He should be put into the same position as he reaches when he is aged 70. If he has qualified by long service and contribution, it is the view of my party that he should be


entitled to draw his pension irrespective of his earnings. It is because this Amendment is a step in that direction that I support it, and that is why there appears also on the Notice Paper the Amendment in my name.
We have heard a great deal about the comprehensive review that is to take place. We have here a matter that clearly ought to be taken into account in that review, but I ask the Government not to wait for that, but to take this further step to do away with what I now regard as a pernicious rule in relation to retirement pensioners.

Mr. Curran: I am not a late convert to the view that the earnings rule should be scrapped. The reasons for it that have been given in the past did not sound to me any more plausible then than those that we shall probably hear presently from the Government Front Bench. The earnings rule was invented by the Labour Party, which took it over from Beveridge—[Interruption.] I have the Beveridge Report here and if anyone is rash enough to dispute what I say, I shall quote from it—

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not a late convert to the principle he now enunciates, but will he say why, on 30th January last, he voted in favour of maintaining the earnings rule both for old-age pensioners and for widows?

Mr. Curran: That exercise on that occasion was one that I did not consider to be honest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Just a moment. Let me go on—

Mr. Hamling: On a point of order, Sir Samuel. I was pulled up about an hour ago for implying dishonesty in an opponent.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not out of order to make such a charge generally. It is the individual charge that is out of order.

Mr. Curran: Thank you, Sir Samuel.
I was saying that that advocacy by the Labour Party of the abolition of the earnings rule was not honest. That was my opinion then, and it still is my opinion.
What we have to consider now is this. The earnings rule that was built into

the Welfare State at the beginning has now been abolished in respect of one class of victim. I now ask whether it makes sense to abolish the rule in respect of one class and to leave it in force in respect of another. If we do that we create yet another anomaly and, goodness knows, the Welfare State is crowded with anomalies. Once we do what the Bill proposes, a widow will get her pension, when she is over 60, free from the earnings rule, but her spinster sister, also over 60, will draw her retirement pension subject to the earnings rule.
What are the arguments in favour of this rule? Why did Beveridge invent the retirement principle? I think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) was right. One of the considerations in Beveridge's mind—and, I suppose, one of the considerations in the mind of the post-war Labour Government—was that we might have a recurrence of mass employment, and it was thought desirable that people should be encouraged to retire from work, and so create vacancies.
But Beveridge went rather further than that. He used three arguments for making the pension conditional upon retirement from work. The first was that making retirement from work a condition of the pension was the logical consequence of giving adequate pensions. The second was that giving to each individual an incentive to continue at work so long as possible in place of retiring was a necessary attempt to lighten the burden that would otherwise fall on the British community, through the large and growing proportion of people at the higher ages.
The third was that the age to which men could go on working with satisfaction to themselves and advantage to the community varied with every individual and from one occupation to another.
Beveridge argued that we were giving a retirement pension that was adequate for the pensioner to live on and that it was therefore right to attach an earnings rule to it. Secondly, he suggested that when we were fixing the age of retirement it should be made flexible. In fact, neither condition has been fulfilled. The retirement pension is not, and never has been a subsistence pension.


It was not adequate even at the beginning. It has never kept pace with inflation. Even with the provisions of this Bill it still will not be adequate. A pensioner cannot possibly live on £4 a week. If he has no other means, he will still have to seek a supplementation from the National Assistance Board.
The implied theory on which Beveridge rested—that the pension would be adequate for people to live on and that it was therefore right to attach to it the retirement condition—has not been fulfilled. It never has been fulfilled, and is not being fulfilled now. I suggest that the argument on which the earnings rule was based at the beginning is one that has completely disappeared. Even if it was plausible to use the argument in 1946, it is completely implausible to use it in 1964.
The stock defence for the earnings rule is one that I have had from my own Front Bench when we were the Government, and I daresay that we shall hear it once again from the Minister tonight. It is that we cannot afford to scrap the rule because to do so would cost £120 million a year. That figure was quoted by the right hon. Lady in last week's debate. That sum has increased from the £100 million, at which it has stood for many years, to £120 million because of the increased benefits. I have never understood the basis for that calculation, nor have I been able to understand why it is accepted as easily as it seems to be.
It rests on the assumption that all those women of 60 who now work until they are 65, and all those men of 65 who now work until they are 70, in order to get larger pensions after a further five years at work will, if the rule is abolished, immediately give up regular work and retire to collect the pension. There are 400,000 such people, and the argument is that they will all act in that way. I do not believe it.
We now see around us a great increase in job pensions. Many men now look forward to such pensions. A man of 65 in a job pension scheme may in two or three years' time collect substantial payments. Are we expected to believe that he will abandon his job at 65 and surrender his prospective rights merely to draw £4 a week from the State scheme?
I think it highly improbable that the Ministry is accurate in assuming that all

the 400,000 men and women who could retire in the circumstances I have outlined will do so. But, unless we accept that assumption, the £120 million story disappears. I expect that tonight we will get the same sort of reply that we have heard many times before, but I hope that the Minister will at least amplify it, and not just give us a repeat performance.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) were both right in saying that the basic objection to the earnings rule is that it is widely regarded as unfair, and that we should make Welfare State arrangements that ordinary men and women regard as just. The ordinary citizen does not regard the earnings rule as fair. He may see people drawing pensions from the State which are paid without any earnings rule attached. He does not see why one pension should be singled out for the earnings rule while others are not.
The more we extend job pensions and public service pensions the more glaring this becomes. A pensioner may be subjected to the earnings rule yet know other pensioners, such as policemen or ex-soldiers, who are not subject to it The official explanation is completely unconvincing to him.
8.0 p.m.
There is a subsidiary objection which is also very strong. The existence of the rule leads to a considerable amount of fiddling and tale-bearing. Quite a number of men and women find themselves something to do in order to earn a little more money after retirement. They do not always report it. Now, there are a certain number of people in this country who have what may be called disinterested malevolence. They are malevolent for no perceptible reason. I suppose that every hon. Member has come across them. I have myself. Such people tend to tell tales about men and women drawing pensions and not reporting their earnings.
An old lady helps to wash up in a cafe, or an old gentleman becomes a car park attendant, or a jobbing gardener, in order to earn a little extra money and fails to report it. Then someone writes an anonymous letter and so these pensioners are bothered by inquiries. The whole thing causes a disproportionate amount of tension. For that reason as


well as the others it would be good to get rid of the rule.
Who, in fact, wants the rule to stay? Who insists that it shall be there? I assure the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan that he need not have been as timid or as yielding as he was when he asserted that the rule was defended on the ground that, if people were paid pensions without strings, they would offer to work on the cheap. I shall quote from the proceedings of the Labour Party conference at Scarborough last year, when Mr. Nicholas, the party's treasurer, who was then Assistant Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, made it plain that he and the Labour Party insisted on retaining the rule. I have the official report here with me.
I was at the conference—as an observer, not as a delegate—and I can testify that this is an accurate report. Mr. Nicholas was replying to a debate in which the right hon. Lady had taken part and in which a good deal had been said about the earnings rule. He said:
… the Labour Party feels that the time has not yet come for the abolition of the rule for all retirement pensioners, though it is prepared to consider the earnings limit and keep it in line with the rising standards of life for other people.
Explaining why he was in favour of the rule's retention, he went on:
… without the rule the pensions could be a permanent subsidy to wages which in turn can be depressed by the employers and is depressed by them in some places where they escape the vigilance of the trade unions.
I would like to know whether the Labour Government stand by those words. Do the Government still feel that the time has not yet come for the abolition of the rule? When this inquiry is set up into the social services—this inquiry which floats over our heads like a slab of ectoplasm in a seance—will those conducting it be told that the Labour Party still feels that the earnings rule must stay? Was the decision made at Scarborough last year binding on the Government?
I do not see why Mr. Nicholas should give orders to the House of Commons even if he can give them to the Labour party. He said that the Labour Party wants to keep the rule. Does that mean that the Labour Government want to

keep the rule? There was no Labour Government at the time, but there was this plain declaration from the party's treasurer that the party was in favour of keeping the rule. I want to know whether his statement is the policy of the Labour Government.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Houghton): I rise to make a few comments on these Amendments in the temporary absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. There is no proposal before the Committee to abolish the earnings rule. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) proposes to raise the limit by 20s. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) would raise the limit by 40s. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) proposes that the sky should be the limit. He suggests that the earnings rule should rise from £5 a week to over £5,000 a year.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will speak later. If she intends to do so I should like to ask her a pertinent question. If she were still sitting on the Treasury Bench as a member of Her Majesty's Government, would her name appear on an Amendment that would lift the earnings rule at this time? I do not believe that it would, because the rule was last relaxed in March of this year when she was a member of the Government.
The Amendment to which her name is now attached proposes a fresh relaxation of the rule within a matter of months after the last one and I do not believe that she would have moved to increase the earnings limit again already. The abolition of the rule is not the question before the Committee and I do not want to get drawn into the wider issues.
Perhaps one of the useful features of our discussions in Committee today is that the review of which so much has been said is virtually taking place here and now. Some very valuable contributions to contemporary thought on social security have come out in the course of the debate.
For the present it would be wiser for me to do more listening than talking on


the future of social security. I shall therefore confine myself to the narrow proposition of the lifting of the earnings rule by 20s. or 40s. or something in that range. Should we relax the rule for retirement pensioners just now? I know that fresh impetus has been given to the desire to relax the rule for retirement pensioners by the abolition of the rule for widows I quite understand that. There is no doubt that the complete abolition of the rule for widows puts in fresh relief the existence of the rule now only for retirement pensioners. Whether that leads one to the conclusion that the rule should be completely abolished for retirement pensioners is a matter for consideration, for discussion and for examination of the consequences and also for examination of the first principles of the scheme itself.
One can distinguish between an earnings rule where retirement is a condition of benefit and an earnings rule which was imposed on widows where retirement was not a condition of receiving the benefit and where the widow was engaged, not in retirement, but in an endeavour to make good the loss of her husband's earnings, so as to maintain the household, the children and herself in a condition at least approaching that to which they had been accustomed. Therefore, in abolishing the rule for widows we have removed the impediment which widows felt stood in the way of their endeavour to replace the earnings of their husbands and also to earn something on their own account. That is a very different condition from that of retirement.

Mr. Curran: Are not the two cases on all-fours? We give benefits to the widowed mother in place of earnings. Under the National Insurance Act the case for giving her benefit was precisely the same as that for giving benefit to the retirement pensioner: it was in place of earnings. To each of these payments the earnings rule was attached for the same condition. If the rule is removed in the one case, where is the logic in keeping it in the other?

Mr. Houghton: Unless I am careful, I shall get drawn into a field of discussion which I want to keep out of. The position of the retirement pensioner is not on all-fours with that of the widow. A widow's benefit is not to replace her

own earnings but her husband's earnings. The retirement pension is to replace a person's own earnings. That is the difference in principle between the two. I hope that hon. Members will let me get out of this field of discussion as quickly as I can. If I am interrupted further, I shall be bound to pursue commentators and adversaries who may pop up and incite me to further discussion on the principle of the earnings rule. I do not want to do that, because I think that it is desirable for all of us to keep a perfectly open mind on this and other aspects of our existing social security scheme if we are to enter into the review with any chance of profitable activity.
Therefore, I shall not say a word today which commits the Government to the retention of the earnings rule in a future and revised scheme of social security, nor shall I say a word in support of its removal. It is there at the moment. The Amendment proposes to relax it and not to remove it. I think I should come now to the suggestion of relaxation.
8.15 p.m.
It is unusual for any change in the earnings rule to be made in a Bill increasing all benefits. The last time it was done within the framework of a National Insurance Bill at the same time as a general increase in benefit rates was by a Labour Government as long ago as 1951. The earnings rule is normally dealt with by Regulations which are introduced separately from a National Insurance Bill. In 1963 the two things came together, but that was quite coincidental, because a review had been undertaken by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, whose report came forward, and it was convenient to do the two things at the same time. It is not unknown for them to be done together, though I do not say that matters very much. But it is not necessary for them to be done together, and that perhaps matters rather more. There is no need to include this in the Bill at this moment and by leaving it out it leaves the Government free to introduce any relaxation of the earnings rule whenever they may think it is appropriate in future and it would not require any fresh Regulation. As the Committee knows, under earlier legislation the earnings rule can be relaxed by Regulation, though it


cannot be abolished in that way. If the Committee proposes to abolish the rule, it must be done by legislation. Relaxations can be made by Regulations.
The normal reason for relaxing the earnings rule is to keep the condition of the rule in harmony with the rise in wages, to keep the two things in some sort of relationship. The Committee will appreciate that wages have not risen since March of this year by an amount which would justify relaxing the rule by 20s. at this moment—not on that principle, at any rate. Usually relaxations are of 10s. or 15s. One pound is a big jump. Forty shillings is a bigger jump still and would be far more than an adjustment of the earnings rule to keep in step with a rise in earnings. It would really be, as the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan candidly confessed, a jump towards abolition. It was in that spirit that he referred to the Liberal Party's Amendment No. 21, and supported it by arguments in favour of abolition and not in favour even of the increase proposed in that Amendment.
We can therefore reject a suggestion that the earnings rule needs to be relaxed at this time to keep in harmony with changes in the level of wages. I hope that that is accepted, because it must be so. This is a far bigger increase than would be justified by that criterion.
By what criterion is it now proposed to relax the earnings rule? If it is by reference to the abolition of the rule for widows, I do not think that the one thing should be regarded as influencing the other. We have reached our decision on the abolition of the rule for widows without in any way prejudicing our view about the retention of the rule for retirement pensioners. We have not proposed to remove it in the Bill. That will have to wait for consideration later when we come to the major review.
If it is proposed to alter the earnings rule in a manner which is a challenge to the principle of the rule, that prejudices future discussion. It is an admission that we want to move towards the total abolition of the rule, without stopping to think whether that would be a suitable feature of a new social security scheme. Therefore, I suggest that it would be unwise for the Committee to jump its fences on this question of principle, in

view of its wider importance in the scheme as a whole. We must look at this quite narrowly at the moment and decide whether the earnings rule should be adjusted now in the light of the usual criteria by reference to which the earnings rule has mostly been altered in the past.
That is all I have to say on the earnings rule. I hope that the Committee will feel that it is a sufficiently plausible case for doing nothing with the earnings rule at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is nothing wrong with being plausible. The trouble with hon. Members opposite is that they are mostly so implausible. It is a perfectly good case to be going on with—and we will be going on with our major review.
I emphasise that this review will be carried out by the Government. This is what we are here for. This is what we were elected to do. This is what we said we would do. I do not want to leave the Committee under any misapprehension about what our immediate intentions are. The Government are undertaking this review with the resources available to us. It is not at present intended to put the matter out to examination by another body, whether a Royal Commission or some kind of Departmental Committee, with outside members.
Still less would it be our desire to have the sort of review Beveridge carried out during the war. Much has been said about the Beveridge Report, but it will be remembered that Beveridge produced that Report single—handed. He had the assistance of able lieutenants and a great deal of evidence presented to him on which he could draw in formulating his proposals, but it was an unusual method of making a report on an extremely important change in social policy. The conditions of the war militated against the usual review by the Government. It was undertaken in quite exceptional circumstances by an exceptional method and I do not think that there is any need for us to copy that now. We can get on with the job.
We have expressed, in various publications, our main theme of social security. We have developed it and have said where we want to go. We have outlined our concept of social security as we see it and this major review is in


line with what we have announced as our major policy on social security. That does not mean that, on further examination, we need necessarily be committed to every feature of the schemes we have already outlined in "National Superannuation" or "New Frontiers of social security."
We have flexible minds on the question of social security. We want to adapt it to contemporary conditions. Nearly everything in the sphere of social security today may be out of date in five or 10 years' time. Thinking is changing rapidly on social matters and, as I said on a previous occasion, when looking at social security today we are not looking at it in the 'sixties but in the 'seventies. We must look ahead.
It will take time for new schemes to be fully operative, though I hope it will not be years before our proposals are available. We are thinking of a much shorter time. Major legislation will be required and there will be the very large question of how the whole scheme is to be financed in present day conditions. I mention that to dispel what I thought was the growing expectation that this review was to be something mounted in a spectacular and dramatic way, with lists of people being announced to do the job, evidence being solicited, witnesses seen and so on. No witnesses are ruled out and no help will be discouraged. Nevertheless, this review is being undertaken by the Government and we propose to proceed with it on those lines.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming about the review? He said that it will be a Government review, that it will not be a Royal Commission review, that it will not have an independent chairman but that outside witnesses will be welcomed. Will it, therefore, be a sort of inter-departmental review, with the addition of outside bodies to bear witness and give opinions?

Mr. Curran: Will the review be conducted by members of the Civil Service, Members of Parliament, or some other kind of third party?

Mr. Houghton: As the Committee knows, I have special responsibilities in

this matter. That is why I am here. I propose to discharge these responsibilities and, frankly, I think that I have as good a head for social security matters as anyone inside or outside the Committee. I intend to bring my experience, imagination and, if I may say so, drive and initiative to bear on this problem. I believe that it can be conducted within the resources of the Government, with us availing ourselves of such help as may be offered or sought by us. I do not want to go further.
We are doing the job. Hon. Members need not expect to see that something different is being done. I hope that, with these remarks, we may now dispose of the Amendment. I sincerely trust that hon. Members opposite will not press it to a Division because I hope that I have given a full explanation of the reasons why the earnings rule should be left alone at the moment. That does not mean that the Government would hesitate, for we would not, to bring forward regulations to relax the earnings rule as soon as it seemed appropriate to do so.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to delay the Committee on this Amendment for longer than necessary. The right hon. Gentleman has just made a very important statement and I want to reserve the right of my hon. Friends for future comment on it. We do not for a moment question the good will and integrity of the right hon. Gentleman, as well as the power of his intellect and knowledge. But, after all, if the right hon. Gentleman is offering himself and all his good will, integrity and intelligence as the principal—I am not quite clear whether the only—investigator of social security, we must point out that he and his hon. Friends have in Opposition, admittedly without the resources of Government, made a number of attempts to find the real answer for contemporary needs in social security. Each time they have produced an answer it has been projected as a panacea, only to be replaced within months or a few short years by yet another attempt.

Miss Herbison: Not true.

Sir K. Joseph: That is why my hon. Friends and I feel, as we proclaimed in our manifesto, that what is needed is


something, a body or group of people, to consider the evidence and views of representative bodies and people whose interests are deeply involved with the social security of the country. I do not wish now to enlarge on this matter, because we are dealing with an important Amendment, but I want to follow up what the right hon. Gentleman said by saying that we regard his statement as most important and that we shall want on a future occasion to comment on it more fully.

Miss Herbison: I must take up one point which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) made. He suggested that plan after plan had come from the Labour Party on the question particularly of social security and superannuation. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, and he must know that he is wrong. The programme for superannuation on which we fought the election in 1959 was exactly the same as the programme on which we fought this year's election.

Sir. K. Joseph: That is just not true.

Miss Herbison: It is true.

Sir K. Joseph: When I first became a Member of the House, I debated on the radio a previous incarnation of this plan with the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. That was not the first plan. It has been followed by yet another. In all five separate panaceas for social insurance have been proposed.

Miss Herbison: Quite wrong.

Sir K. Joseph: This is not discreditable. It represents hard work by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I am only commenting that it shows the fallibility of individuals operating without the benefit of public evidence and public participation.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 174.

Division No. 27.]
AYES
[8.30 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Mathew, Robert


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray


Balniel, Lord
Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Batsford, Brian
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitchell, David


Bessell, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony
Morgan, W. G.


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bingham, R. M.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murton, Oscar


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bullus, Wing Commander Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Butcher, sir Herbert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hendry, Forbes
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Carr, Rt, Hn. Robert
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Chataway, Christopher
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Prior, J. M. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Pym, Francis


Cole, Norman
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Corfield, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crawley, Aidan
Jennings, J. C.
Royle, Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Curran, Charles
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Dance, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Shepherd, William


Dean, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Deeds, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Doughty, Charies
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lubbock, Eric
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thorpe, Jeremy




Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Younger, Hn. George


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene



Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Whitelaw, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vickers, Dame Joan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Ian Fraser.




NOES


Alldritt, W. H.
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Armstrong, Ernest
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen, Will


Atkinson, Norman
Hattersley, Ray
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hazell, Bert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bence, Cyril
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holman, Percy
Perry, E. G.


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Popplewell, Ernest


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Boston, T. G.
Howie, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Boyden, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rose, Paul B.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Skeffington, Arthur


Darling, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Dell, Edmund
Lomas, Kenneth
Solomons, Henry


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Sorensen, R. W.


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael
Stones, William


Dunn, James A.
McInnes, James
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dunnett, Jack
MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McLeavy, Frank
Symonds, J. B.


English, Michael
MacMillan, Malcolm
Taverne, Dick


Ennals, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ensor, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tinn, James


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Manuel, Archie
Tuck, Raphael


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Floud, Bernard
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Warbey, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Molloy, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Garrow, A.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gourley, Harry
Newens, Stan
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gregory, Arnold
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hale, Leslie
Norwood, Christopher
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. McCann and Mr. Fitch.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 43, at the end to add:
(9) Death grant shall be payable in respect of any person who at the time of his death is severely mentally handicapped and has been so since childhood, notwithstanding that at the time of his death he was over the age of nineteen years.
This is a probing Amendment about a problem which arose towards the end

of my time on the other side of the Committee and in which I know that the right hon. Lady, particularly, was very interested, as were, indeed, a number of other hon. Members because they had individual cases on this very matter.
The difficulty has been that of paying death grant in respect of a person who never effectively entered insurance. I have restricted this Amendment to those


children who are severely mentally handicapped and who, although, they grow up, never attain any age beyond the mental age of a child. Should one of those children die, then up to the age of 19 he is covered for death grant purposes on the parent's insurance. Should the child die beyond the age of 19 a very real problem arises, as was shown in the case of such a child of a widow.
The widow was not earning very much—I believe about £10 a week—when one of her children, then aged 20, who had been severely mentally handicapped and who had never been capable of entering ordinary life, died. She applied for a death grant but could not get one. Had the child died below the age of 19 she would have obtained a death grant in respect of the child on her own insurance, but she could not get one because the child was over the age of 19.
We tried various ways to help her. We investigated the position through National Assistance, because, normally, as soon as they are eligible for National Assistance, from the age of 16, these young people apply for and receive National Assistance. They do not pay insurance stamps because they come under the small income exemptions. But we found that there is no power whatever in the National Assistance Act to pay a grant in respect of a person who has died except through a living person who is herself in need. Had that widow herself been on National Assistance she would have been a person in need and could have claimed some help from National Assistance to meet the funeral expenses. But National Assistance has no power to pay a terminal grant in respect of a person who, although on National Assistance during life, has just died.
Investigating this problem, therefore, we were driven back to try to find a solution within the National Insurance Scheme. We tried the possibility of making the death of such a child eligible for death grant on his or her parents' insurance. But frequently such a child dies after the parents have died. This would have meant keeping records in existence for a very long time. It also meant that if a mentally handicapped person were living with another relative, that other relative would probably not

have been able to claim had death grant been dependent upon the parents' insurance. That line of investigation, like that of National Assistance, was ruled out.
It seemed that one of the few lines left, which I feel the right hon. Lady is pursuing, was to try to reduce the contribution conditions for death grant to such a point for these people that they could easily become entitled to a death grant. There is one analogy already in the insurance scheme. Although it is an insurance scheme—that is to say, benefits are payable only in return for contributions—there is one case within the scheme in which benefits can be obtained without so much as a single contribution having been paid. That benefit is the orphans' or guardians' benefit, when the child entitled a person to guardians' benefit if the parent of the orphan child was himself or herself an insured person. Being an insured person means no more than having been a British national and in this country at some time between school-leaving age and retirement age. If the parent of an orphan were an insured parent but had paid no contributions then the orphan would attract guardians' allowance, at the moment 37s. 6d. and under the Bill 40s.
It seemed that the test of being an insured person would be one test whereby the mentally severely handicapped person could enable someone else to draw a death grant in the event of that handicapped person's death. I am aware that if one substitutes this test one can run into difficulty. It would have to be substituted for a very narrow range of people, such as the severely mentally handicapped, and it would be difficult to define that group. What is a severely mentally handicapped child? One which has been handicapped since birth or one which by some accident has become severely mentally handicapped? If one followed the test of being an insured person it would have to be narrowly defined. Many people are excluded from the death grant provision because they were too old when the scheme was brought into existence or because they were within 10 years of retirement age. If such a person were substituted so as to qualify for benefit, this would put up the cost of the measure very considerably.
It seems that if we can possibly get a narrowly defined test confined to those people who for one reason or another—severely mentally handicapped or severely physically handicapped—were never able effectively to become contributors to insurance, we might reach some solution to the problem. If we confined it to this small group of people the cost would be negligible. This is in no sense an expensive measure. But if we cannot confine it, the cost would be considerable. I ask the right hon. Lady, as I am sure she will, to carry on trying to find a solution to this problem of enabling severely mentally handicapped children to qualify persons who are in charge of them for a death grant when the severely mentally handicapped person dies.

Mr. Pentland: We are all deeply concerned about the position of the unfortunate people referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and referred to also in the Amendment. We are right to be concerned about this problem and it is one which I think everyone will agree will always have to be approached with sympathy and understanding. The Government intend to approach it in that way, and I have taken note of what the hon. Lady said.
I was impressed by the hon. Lady's moderate tone in moving the Amendment because, having sat here since half past three this afternoon, it has been nauseating to see the tremendous feeling now being expressed by some hon. Members on the benches opposite about the problems and anomalies which exist in the social security scheme. I find that absolutely hypocritical in many respects. As my right hon. Friend said a few hours ago, the Government have been in office for only a few weeks, yet we are being asked to solve problems and deal with anomalies which have existed for many years, and were known to exist by the previous Government.
I was informed, and the hon. Lady has now made it perfectly clear, that over the years considerable investigations have been undertaken to find possible ways and means of making provision for the payment of a death grant on the death of permanently handicapped children. Incidentally, I was pleased that she pointed this out in her remarks, be-

cause the Amendment refers only to a mentally handicapped person and makes no definition of that term. It omits the possibility of making provision for physically handicapped children, and, therefore, its effect would be very restrictive indeed.
As the hon. Lady said, the problem here is not primarily one of expense at all—far from it. There are estimated to be only about 3,000 such deaths a year. The real difficulty here—and the hon. Lady referred to it—is to decide how the Government can make provision for the payment of a death grant on the death of a permanently handicapped person without bringing in its train considerably wider changes. This is a question to which we will have to find a solution.
I do not want to weary the Committee. The hon. Lady was brief, and asked for certain assurances, so I shall not go into detail about what the changes would mean. I assure the Committee that they would be far-reaching, with implications much wider than in the field of death grant benefits, and I am sure that the hon. Lady, with her experience of these matters, appreciates that.
In the short time that we have had available to us we have examined this problem very carefully indeed, and we have found, as the previous Government did, that it is a difficult one to solve. I am not going to say this evening that we have found a solution to it. My right hon. Friend, and all those associated with her, are deeply concerned about it. We want to find a solution—make no mistake about that—and we are determined to find one if it is at all possible. We want to assure the Committee that we shall embark upon a detailed study of this matter. This will not be brought within the ambit of the major review. It will be an independent study into this problem.
We approach this question with sympathy and understanding. We are hoping that as a result of our investigation the prevailing difficulties, which are now understood by all hon. Members, can be finally overcome. In the meantime, I would ask the hon. Lady and her hon. and right hon. Friends to accept that assurance and withdraw the Amendment, otherwise I must invite the Committee to reject it.

Mrs. Thatcher: I shall be quite happy to withdraw the Amendment. I am aware that had the Parliamentary Secretary been able to find the solution it would probably have been in the Bill, as was the right hon. Lady's solution of the home confinement grant and the maternity grant. I was a little disappointed that the solution to this problem was not in the Bill, but we shall be having a consolidating Measure later, presumably, and I hope that it will then not be out of order to put one or two things like this into that Measure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Dame Edith Pitt: Before we leave this Clause will the Minister tell me why the age of retirement, or pensionable age as the Bill puts it, for a widow goes up to 65, but still remains at 60 for a single woman?

Miss Herbison: The answer to that is very simple. On Second Reading, I gave the explanation. If the earnings rule is abolished for widows, as it will be under the Bill, and we do nothing about raising the age from 60 to 65, it would be treating this subject in a cat and mouse way. The widow would have her earnings without any deduction at all until she was 60 and a week after she was 60 she would have a decrease because of her earnings. The proposal in the Bill seems to us the most humane way of dealing with this matter.

Dame Edith Pitt: I understand the point that the Minister has just repeated, but I want everyone to be clear now that the normal retirement age for a widow is 65 and for a single woman is 60. I think that this is wrong and I hope that it is one of the points that will be borne in mind by the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR OBTAINING BENEFITS.)

Regulation 12 of the National Insurance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1948 shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of six months there were substituted a reference to a period of twelve months.—[Mrs. Thatcher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.0 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Barnett Janner): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this new Clause we discuss new Clause No. 3—Extension of period for claiming benefit.

Mrs. Thatcher: That would certainly be suitable, Sir Barnett.
Time limits are an old feature of insurance legislation, and towards the end of my time in the Ministry I took special interest in certain of these time limits because some of them appeared to me, as a lawyer, to be particularly harsh. During last year we looked once again, through the National Insurance Advisory Committee, at the time limits for claiming sickness benefits, and those were revised. In this new Clause and in new Clause No. 3 I am drawing attention to other time limits which operate particularly harshly.
I refer, first, to the time limit under which a benefit can be extinguished if the order is not cashed within a certain time. The only long-term benefit to which I am entitled happens to be one under the Family Allowances Scheme, but the same rules apply to other order books. It will be found that if the weekly order is not cashed within six months, all right to the amount on the face of that order is extinguished.
Like many other people, I had not read the small print on the order very closely before I went to the Ministry. I may have read it when I first received the book, but that was a long time ago, and I had forgotten that if the order was not cashed within that time one lost right to benefit. The period used to be three months, but it was raised to six months. But there is an absolute bar to benefit if an order is not cashed within that period.
This bar occurs under the Claims and Payments Regulations, 1948, which have been amended since and are now extremely complicated. Some of the regulations no longer exist. Nevertheless, there is still an absolute bar to a person's receiving benefit if he has not cashed the order within six months.
This can give rise to considerable hardship. Let us take the case of a mother who is thinking of accumulating her family allowances after Christmas. Her son or daughter may be going to a grammar school or secondary modern school in September, and a new uniform may be required. So she decides to accumulate her family allowances between Christmas and, say, September. She then goes to cash the whole lot at the beginning of September in order to receive a nice lump sum to pay for the uniform, but she discovers that all those allowances which were due to be paid in January and February are out of time, and that try as she may she will have to forfeit those amounts altogether.
A similar regulation applies to postal drafts received from the Ministry. A postal draft in relation to sickness benefits may have been claimed. The title to that benefit will have been investigated and agreed by the Ministry and when that postal draft is sent out it is agreed that the person to whom it is sent has a right to the sum on the face of the draft. There is no difficulty about investigating that part of the transaction again.
The draft may then be put in a drawer, because somebody is ill in the house, and may be forgotten for six months Many other types of drafts cannot be cashed after six months, but title to the sums on the faces of those drafts is not lost. But if a person with a postal draft for sickness benefit goes to the Ministry and says, "Please will you replace this draft with another for the same amount?" he learns for the first time that there is an absolute bar of six months to that benefit. If the draft has not been cashed, it is not only that instrument which is non-encashable, it is the title to the benefit which has disappeared. Once or twice, towards the end of my time in the Ministry, I made inquiries about this, and there was always some reason why we should not extend the period. Nevertheless, I am anxious that the National Insurance Advisory Committee should now look at this problem again.
I understand that the main problems remaining are administrative and that, once the period of title is prolonged, the Ministry would have to keep so many forms and orders that they would need far more extensive storage space. Nevertheless, to a lawyer who is used to dealing with claims and with evidence which may relate to matters which happened up to six years back, the period of six months seems very short indeed. It is said with regard to the orders which appear in books—where one has a book, which usually lasts for a year—that when one signs that order one signs that certain conditions have been fulfilled, that one has not been in hospital, for example, or that one's earnings were not more than a certain amount.
A part of the reason why it is said that the period of the claim could not be extended is that it would be difficult for a person to remember what happened as far back as six months or longer than six months, and difficult for the Ministry to investigate. As a lawyer, one remembers many occasions in court when evidence is given about an accident which took place two or three or even four years before the court action. Witnesses have no difficulty in recalling the facts of the case.
This does not happen in many cases. Sometimes the facts are there and are ascertainable, but even so the bar is absolute—even where all the facts have been proved without dispute. There is still then an absolute bar to benefit. This is a very modest Amendment. It asks that the period should once again be moved from six months to 12 months. Alternatively, I would ask the right hon. Lady if the matter could once again be referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
There is, of course, another aspect to this particular group of Regulations and that concerns problems such as retirement pensions. Here, also, there is an absolute bar of six months. In the first place it is three months, which can be extended to six months if good cause for delay in claiming is shown, but there is an absolute bar of six months in claiming arrears of benefit. This can give rise to considerable individual disappointment in cases such as that of a deserted wife who is entitled to retirement pension on her husband's insurance. She


is no entitled to that pension until her husband retires. She may not have heard from her husband for some time and she does not know when he actually retires. Her only way of finding out is by persistently making inquiries from her local National Insurance Office. Cases have arisen where deserted wives have heard that their husbands have been retired perhaps for a year or more. That, if known, would have entitled them to pension for a year or more, but when they go to the office they are told that there is an absolute bar to arrears of pension after six months.
Occasionally, we came across the sort of case where people believed that the earnings rule still persisted beyond the first five years after retirement. One could get a man of, say, 72 still earning, and his family believing that he is not entitled to pension because he is earning more than £5 or £6 a week. He then learns, perhaps by accident, that he would have been entitled to a pension because the earnings rule ceases to operate for a man aged 70. He is very pleased, because he thinks that he has one or two years' pension in hand. But he learns that, at the most, he can get benefit for only six months back.
Some of these rules have been changed before. Last year we looked at the time limits for sickness benefit. I understand that neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor the right hon. Lady can accept today an Amendment designed to provide for a straight increase from six months to 12 months, but I think that we might ask the National Insurance Advisory Committee to look at this again, with a very strong indication that we should like this time limit extended. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that this was one of the bees that I had in my bonnet and it will go on buzzing. I shall be very glad if he can give me an assurance that this will be referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee or that he will look at the problem.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): I am sure that hon. Members will be grateful for the way in which the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has put the problem. In view of that, and because many hon. Members were up

late last night, I propose merely to try to deal with the main points. I hope that I shall be able to assure the hon. Lady that it was well worth while to move this Motion, as undoubtedly it has resulted in an addition to the wealth of information which is being built up all over the country about the problem of the Welfare State of the future—a phrase which has been agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
The new Clause under discussion seeks to extend the time limit in which retirement pensions and widows' benefits may be claimed and the limits within which payments of national insurance benefits can be claimed. It is quite clear that the question of the payment of pensions in arrears is one which has worried the hon. Lady and it may be that it has worried other hon. Members. The hon. Lady drew a comparison between that and cases which she has encountered in her experience as a lawyer, but I think that they are problems in different categories. A few observations on the new Clause may, however, be of some worth to the Committee.
Its provisions would affect only claims to retirement pension and widows' benefit. New Clause No. 3, of itself, would not extend the period to 12 months in which arrears on claims might be paid. A further provision in the regulations which precludes the payment of arrears over a period of more than six months would have to be amended, and that is a provision to which this Clause does not apply. The time limit to which I have referred was reviewed this year and approved by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. There is a further regulation affecting retirement pensions, specifying the notice of retirement which must be given, which could affect the payment of arrears. This would need a further amendment which is not provided for in the new Clause.
Time limits on payments and claims were examined from 1950 to 1952 by the National Insurance Advisory Committee which, in its 1952 Report, supported the existing arrangements in general. Although I do not suggest that we should slavishly follow the Committee's main reasons, it is probably worth while mentioning them. First, entitlement to benefit does not depend on retirement


or on widowhood alone. Secondly, continuing conditions affecting benefit must be satisfied—namely, the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, reductions for periods in hospital, the effect of overlapping benefit rules, eligibility for dependency allowances, absence abroad and so on. All those possibilities have to be taken into account.
9.15 p.m.
If we were not careful, we would be confronted with the difficulty of establishing the facts in regard to past periods during which claims were made. These types of payment were originally worked out on the basis of weekly national insurance benefits which were regarded, even by Beveridge and the first post-war Labour Government—and by the present Opposition when it was in Government—as being primarily for current maintenance.
The effect of the other new Clause would be to extend from six months to 12 months the period in which benefit payments might be obtained, and a few observations on the scope of the Clause might be worth while at this stage.
The rules governing extinguishment to benefit after six months were approved in 1952 by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in the Report to which the hon. Lady and I have referred. An additional point that has not been mentioned is that we are not here dealing with a few cases. The result would be that storage of many million more paid orders would have to be provided for, and it is doubtful how far the increased administrative costs would be justified. The total number of extinguishments is very small indeed in relation to the very many millions of payments made, but that does not mean that we ought to brush aside these two new Clauses.
There are practical difficulties to this and my right hon. Friend has agreed that we would be prepared to look into the problem. While I cannot give any assurance now, I hope that the hon. Member for Finchley will accept that we are prepared to look into this—and I am not discussing the general review to which so much reference has been made. Outside of that we are ready to look into this question. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will be prepared to withdraw the Motion, because the spirit in which

she has posed the questions involved has resulted in an exploratory debate and is a constructive contribution to the search for an answer to problems which, we hope, some day very soon to be able to solve.

Mrs. Thatcher: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary very much, but I am a little disappointed. He gave the same arguments which I know backwards, although he sounded as if he actually believed them. I do not think that I ever sounded as if I believed them. Indeed, I do not think that I ever gave them from the Dispatch Box.
However, the year 1952 is a long time back and it was then that the National Insurance Advisory Committee last looked at this question. Some of the reasons which the Committee then advanced for retaining the strict time limit are very out of date. For example, one reason was that this is a weekly benefit, meant for weekly outgoings. That reason bears no relation to modern life. The rates do not come in weekly, and even the Ministry itself will pay retirement pensions quarterly. Now all kinds of people draw retirement pensions and it is nonsense to say, "If you do not draw it weekly you do not need it and must therefore lose your right to it."
This is very much a picture of an old welfare scheme not at all suited to modern needs. I hope that, as a result of this discussion, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has his prejudices in the right place and that his prejudices are in favour of a longer time for claiming benefits.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady must not jump to conclusions. It was only because of her prepossessing smile and the charming way in which she moved the Motion that I did not want to enter into a cut and thrust debate. I think this is a constructive proposal and I do not want to draw too much attention to the fact that it is only a few months since the time limit for claiming sickness benefits was reviewed and the maintenance of those limits was recommended in Cmnd. 2400.

Mrs. Thatcher: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says and I am not getting involved in a cut and thrust debate either. If he thinks that this is cut and thrust he should see me when I really get going. In case I do get going, it will be as well


if now, Sir Barnett, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2.—(PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN PART I OF SCHEDULE 2 TO INSURANCE ACT.)

Dame Edith Pitt: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 14, to leave out from "112 6" to end and to to insert:
42 6 / 34 6 / 32 6 / —

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment I suggest that we also consider the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and other hon. Members, in page 10, line 16, leave out from "80 0" to end and insert:
42 6 / 34 6 / 32 6 / —

Amendment No. 12, in line 18, leave out "40 0" and insert "42 6".

Amendment No. 13, in line 26, leave out from "allowance" to end and insert:

42 6/ — / 34 6 / 32 6 /—

Dame Edith Pitt: That would be convenient, Sir Barnett.
The purpose of all these Amendments is an endeavour to maintain for certain children of beneficiaries the priority and the preferential treatment which have been given to them in recent years by the last Government. The Amendments relate, first, to widow's allowance, which is the payment made during the first 13 weeks of widowhood; secondly, to widowed mother's benefit; thirdly, to guardian's allowances, which are the payments made in respect of certain orphan children; and, fourthly, to child's special allowance, which is a payment made in certain circumstances to a child whose parents have been divorced and whose father has since died.
In all these cases in recent years, beginning I think in 1956, we have given preferential treatment to the children when there has been an increase in benefits. By far the largest group must be the children of the widowed mother. It has been felt on both sides of the House of Commons that the widowed mother is in a position

which specially commands our sympathy, because she must accept the burden of bringing up her family—the financial burden of ensuring that there is enough money to keep it and the personal burden of standing in as both parents to a growing family.
Thus it was felt that the best way to help her—the help extended to the other two classes of children—was to increase the payments made for her children. She benefited when there was a general increase in the pension payment to all beneficiaries, but on several occasions in recent years there was added an extra amount to the children, which could never be withdrawn by the operation of the earnings rule and which was paid directly to the children who were her prime responsibility.
I am a little distressed that the Bill does no more than give to the children of the beneficiaries I have listed the same amount—2s. 6d. extra per child—as it does, for instance, to the children of a man on sickness pay, a man on unemployment pay, or, in cases where there are children, a retirement pensioner. I should like to feel that the Committee is prepared still to continue this measure of preferential treatment, which goes directly to the children concerned in all cases, is not affected by any outside consideration, and benefits the widowed mother, children who are accepted under National Insurance as orphans, and children who are accepted under National Insurance as having a claim for benefit because their parents have been divorced and their father has died having regularly paid his contributions until his death.
In the past the present Government have never voted or spoken against this preferential treatment for the children of whom I speak. I hope that tonight they will be able to agree that we should continue to keep these children ahead of the rates of benefit for other children who enjoy both parents, whatever their present difficulties may be. I should like to think that the whole Committee agreed with the principle of giving to children who must have lost at least one parent, in some cases both, the extra opportunity, however modest it may be, that we have been able to accord to them since 1956. I hope that the Amendments are acceptable.

9.30 p.m.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was correct in saying that when we were in opposition we never voted against the preferential treatment that was given to the children of widows and the other classes covered by these Amendments. Indeed, not only did we not vote against them but we definitely supported this preferential treatment.
Two of the Amendments under discussion would increase by 2s. 6d. the rate that would be given for each child of a widow who was receiving the widowed mother's allowance or the widow's allowance. The other two Amendments would cover the children of those in receipt of the guardian's allowance and the special allowance for children. On the face of it, it would seem that the Amendments should be accepted in this instance.
From 1948 until 1956 the rates for all children were the same; in other words, for the categories we are discussing, for the children of the sick and unemployed, and for children of retired pensioners. It was in 1956 that the first change was made. Hon. Members should realise that if the Amendments are not accepted—and I will ask the Committee to reject them—the children of the widowed mother will still have 17s. 6d. of a lead over the children of the unemployed and sick—and 17s. 6d. is a considerable lead in these matters.
We have always agreed that it is just that there should be higher payments for the children of widows, as well as for the other categories covered by the Amendments. However, in framing the Bill it was not by any mistake that we decided on a flat—rate increase of 2s. 6d. We felt that this time—for good reasons, which I shall adduce—a flat-rate increase of 2s. 6d. was the correct thing to do. Only in March of this year there was an increase for all the widows' children covered by the Amendments, a considerable increase which raised the allowance from 30s. to 37s. 6d., but for the children of the sick and unemployed there was no increase in March.
When I had to decide what to do in the Bill, I naturally had to take into account the increase of 7s. 6d. given only in. March of this year to those children of widows and the others qualify-

ing for the child's special allowance, along with the fact that no increase at all had been given this year to the children of the sick and unemployed. It seemed to me—and I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee—that as we are discussing the Bill in December it was right for us to give a flat-rate increase of 2s. 6d. to the dependent children of all categories.
I also draw the attention of the Committee to the need to have regard to the whole family in these matters. It was because, in giving consideration to this, that I had to take the whole family into account that I decided that a flat-rate increase of 2s. 6d. was the right course to take.
Under the Bill, the widow with one Child will receive £6 a week. A sick or unemployed man with a wife and one child will receive £7 12s. 6d.—£1 12s. 6d. more to keep his wife. A widow with two children will get £8 a week under the Bill. A sick or unemployed man with a wife and two children will get £8 15s.—only 15s. more with a wife to keep. A widow with three children will have £10 a week under the Bill. A sick or unemployed man with a wife and three children will have £9 19s. 6d.—6d. less than the widow with three children.
It may be said that sickness and unemployment benefits are short-term benefits.

Dame Edith Pitt: Dame Edith Pitt indicated assent.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady nods agreement. But that is not always so. What about the chronic sick? A man may be sick month after month and year after year, with all the expense that that involves. Should not we consider the wife and children of the chroncially sick man? In some areas in Scotland and the North of England and in some parts of Wales a man may be unemployed for a very long time. Again, it seems to me that there must come a stage in these considerations when we should consider the family of such people.
Therefore, because of the increase of 7s. 6d. given in March this year, and because of the comparisons which I have just made between the position of a widow with one, two or three children and that of a sick man with a wife and one, two or three children, I hope that


the Committee will feel that the flat rate increase of 2s. 6d. is correct. That does not mean that in future there will always be a flat-rate increase of 2s. 6d. or of any other amount. It may be that we will have to make special provision for the children of widows. However, this time we felt, I think rightly, that the provisions which we were making were correct.
I hope that with that explanation the hon. Lady will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Mrs. Thatcher: This is the point which I have been anxious to reach all evening, particularly since, when we were discussing early Amendments on widows' benefits, some hon. Members opposite seemed anxious to prove that we had done so little for widows during our term of office. Now the Minister advises the Committee to reject the Amendment on the ground that we, in our period of office, did so much for the children of widowed mothers. That is very true. The differential of 17s. 6d. existed before the Bill. Indeed, since 1956, with the exception of the increase given in 1958, the widowed mother has had a preferential rate of increase for her children to that given to the sick and unemployed. I had hoped that even this time the right hon. Lady would still give a preferential rate of increase in view of what she has done for other widows.
The right hon. Lady will remember the comment of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, in its 1960 Report, when the draft regulations were before the Committee. Discussing how best to dispose of moneys in the National Insurance Fund in a way which would help the widowed mothers it said:
Relaxation of the earnings rule will however mainly benefit widows whose family circumstances permit them to undertake a substantial amount of work or whose work is relatively well paid. It will not help the widow who cannot readily leave here children and go out to work.
What we were hoping was that as the right hon. Lady has already helped those—and I agree that she has—she would also help the widows who cannot go out to work to the same extent by giving them a larger increase for their children.
I think, incidentally, that she put, during her speech, an excellent argument for bigger increases in absolute terms for

the children of the sick and the unemployed. As I pointed out twice already in comment on the Bill, it is a long time since such a small proportion of the increased benefit has been given in respect of children. I have the figures with me. In 1963, when there was a 10s. increase, children got 2s. 6d.; in 1961, when there was a 7s. 6d. increase, children still got 2s. 6d.; in 1958, when we gave a 10s. increase, children got 3s. 6d.
There has not been a time for many years when children have had such a small proportion of the total increase as they have got now, because it is not 2s. 6d. compared with 7s. 6d., it is not 2s. 6d. compared with 10s.; it is 2s. 6d. compared with 12s. 6d., the smallest possible increase in relation to children that could have been given. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I think so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Carping criticism."] It is not carping to the children of the sick and unemployed. It may be to the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members opposite have a chance to put it up. They are not preferring the children of the sick or of the unemployed or of the widows. I was dealing with an Amendment concerned with the children of widowed mothers. It was the right hon. Lady who brought in the children of the sick and the unemployed.
I accept her explanation that, as we have done so much for the children of widowed mothers, she does not think that they should be entitled to a preferential rate of increase now.

Miss Herbison: There are one or two points I should like to take up. It amazes me how the hon. Lady tries to belittle all the very great improvements which we have made in the Bill. "After all", she says, "we are abolishing the widows' earnings rule in the Bill. But what does that mean? It does not protect the children of widows". I wonder whether the hon. Lady knows what happens to working-class widows? They have to go out to earn, and at the same time they have to care for their families in their homes. These are the widows who—apart from any other widows—will benefit from this Bill by the abolition of the earnings rule.
9.45 p.m.
When someone on this side of the Committee said that the hon. Lady


should not carp about these things she said, "But surely one must carp for the sake of the unemployed", but my whole case was that these Amendments do nothing at all for the children of the sick or of the unemployed. Consider the 12s. 6d. increase and the 21s. increase. Like the widow, the sick or the unemployed do not say when they get their benefit, "This is the benefit for the man; this is the benefit for the woman; this is the benefit for the first child; this is the benefit for the second child".
What they say is, "Here is this sum which we are getting at the end of the week to keep the family". When we add these increases of 12s. 6d., 21s. and 2s. 6d. there is no single family in Britain which is not really benefiting greatly under the Bill.

Dame Edith Pitt: I had not intended to speak again, but really the right hon. Lady must get her facts right. She has just referred to working-class mothers who will benefit by the removal of the earnings rule, who, due to their circumstances, go out to work. They are the women who will not benefit by the removal of the earnings rule. I said this in my Second Reading speech. The women who stand to benefit are the professional women who have high qualifications and who have thus high earnings and whose need for the present earnings rule—[Interruption.]—Well, if hon. Members on the other side of the Committee will tell me of many ordinary working women whose gross earnings are about £9 a week, which they must have to be affected by the earnings rule of £7 a week, I would be very glad to hear.
I am always glad to hear of women making progress, but in general the abolition of the earnings rule for the widowed mother is not going to benefit the women we should most like to help, the woman with young children who has certainly benefited in the past because the double amount given to her children is something which goes into that weekly sum to which the right hon. Lady referred. It was for that reason specifically that I hoped she would be prepared to reconsider the decision only to give the same amount to the widowed mother's children now as to other beneficiaries.
I agree that there are the chronic sick and even, I suppose, some unemployed, who are on National Insurance for a long time and whose needs grow as long as they are receiving National Insurance benefits. But they are not the majority. If we go back two Amendments, the right hon. Lady was very concerned to prove, in respect of the abolition of the earnings rule for widows, that it was because it was not the widow's earnings but somebody else's earnings that it was felt right to remove the rule for widowed mothers and to retain the rule for the ordinary retirement pensioner.
The right hon. Lady cannot have the argument both ways. If the widowed mother is not expected to have earnings which will be affected by the rule, we must assume that she stands in the same position as the average pensioner claiming sickness or unemployment pay or who is in work up to the time that he has to fall back upon the benefit and who in the majority of cases has every prospect of returning to work. I still say that the widowed mother, especially, is in particular need of all the help we can give her, and that is why I ask the right hon. Lady even at this late stage to look with a little more sympathy at the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4.—(RATE OR AMOUNT OF BENEFIT ETC. UNDER INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT.)

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 14, in page 13, line 17, at the end to insert:
(c) in any other case … … 30s.

The Chairman: It would be for the convenience of the Committee to take at the same time Amendment No. 15 in Schedule 5, page 15, line 10, after "19", to insert "(a)".

Amendment No. 16 in line 15, at the end to insert:
(b) in subsection (3) for the words "twenty shillings", there shall be substituted the words "thirty shillings".

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Earlier tonight the right hon. Lady the Member


for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who I am sorry to see has left us—I am sure that one of her Parliamentary Secretaries will pass on to her what I say—suggested that what she has done is completely in line with everything else in the Bill.
In these three Amendments I want to point out that everything else is not in line. We are dealing with the industrial injuries "any other case" widow—a widow who, financially, has been on precisely the same footing since the first Industrial Injuries Act was passed nearly 20 years ago. Consequently, this class of widow is almost on all-fours with the 10s. widow. In war pensions there is a similar category of widow who still receives only 20s. a week. If it is right that the 10s. widow should today have her pension raised to 30s. then it is equally right that the industrial injuries "any other case" widow should have her pension raised from 20s. to 30s. a week. That is the object of the three Amendments.

Mr. Allason: Recently I put down a Parliamentary Question about war widows. These are the widows aged under 40 without children who have been on a pension of 20s. a week since 1946. I was very surprised to receive the Answer that their case had been considered by the Government and turned down. They had not been forgotten. They had definitely been turned down.
The Minister told us today that the reason for increasing the pension of the 10s. widow was the increase in the cost of living since those days. Apparently it is right to increase her pension to 30s. and yet to give nothing to the 20s. widow. This is a tragic injustice. The result of the Bill is that the industrial injuries widow and the war pension widow in this category will receive less than the 10s. widow. When the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act was introduced in 1946, the two rates were, for the young widow without children, 20s.; for the widow with children or the widow over the age of 50, 30s. The ratio was two to three. We have gone a long way since those days. At least the age limit at which the widow gets her pension has been reduced to 40.

That was done in 1956. Nevertheless, we still have these widows under 40 who are on a pension of only 20s. a week.
The Minister will probably say, as was said in answer to me, that they are all right because they only have to wait until they are 40, when they will get the higher rate of pension, but it is not much comfort to a widow of 30 to be told that she will have to wait 10 years before she gets this increase. One might as well say to the 10s. widow, aged 50, "You have to wait only 10 years before you get your retirement pension".
If the pension of the 10s. widow is to be increased to 30s., the case is made for industrial and war pension widows to receive not less than the increase to be given to the 10s. widow, and I hope that both sides of the Committee will join me in believing that.

Mr. Harold Davies: I listened with interest to the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) and to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). Before I indicate what we hope the Committee will do about the Amendment, perhaps I might point out that its intention is to increase the 20s. widow to 30s. Superficially, it seems that that should be done, and that it is fair enough, but it goes deeper. Industrial injuries widows' benefits payable to young able-bodied widows without children who do not qualify for the higher rate of benefit, which under the Bill is to be increased from 75s. to 90s., make up this category.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well why these widows have deliberately been omitted. The initiative for this came from the other side of the Committee before we became the Government, and that is why I am sick to the teeth of the hypocrisy which has been shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite during our discussions. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), are the two best informed Members in this Committee on this problem. They know why, at this juncture, in this piece of ambulance work which we owe to the under-privileged and those at the bottom of the heap, as one hon. Member called them, these widows have not been included.
These widows were deliberately omitted from the Bill because the whole problem of the proper amount of death benefit payable to them, and to other adult dependents of deceased workers, is part of a fundamental review at present being undertaken by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I want my right hon. and hon. Friends, and especially the new Members who may not take as much interest in this subject and know as much about it as the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Lady do, to note that the problem is now being discussed by that Council.
During our discussions on the uprating Bill in 1963 the Government agreed that the question of the lower rates of industrial death benefits should be referred to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council so that the basic philosophy underlying these provisions could be looked at afresh in the light of the development of the whole gamut of social welfare and social security since 1948. Both sides of the Committee agree about that.
But if we agreed to the Amendment we would merely make more difficult the problem of developing a completely fresh approach to the question of social security and welfare.
It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the National Insurance &amp;c. Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE &c. BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted.

Mr. Davies: I will not keep the Committee much longer, but to round off the discussion it is worth while considering the question that has been referred to. I had just said that the basic philosophy underlying the provisions should be looked at afresh in the light of developments since 1948. Hon. Members opposite know full well that a reference

was made in January, 1964, and that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is now proceeding with its work on this reference.
The problem covers not only the 20s. widows, but further complexities of death benefit provisions for widely differing groups of other adult dependants. An essential part of the Council's task is to discover the real situation of the 20s. widows and each of the other groups, so that all those problems can be brought into focus. That is the task that faces them.
Many of these anomalies are blurred and out of focus, and pending the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council—and the Council has arranged for a special inquiry into the circumstances of these people—it has been generally accepted, both in the T.U.C. Report for 1963–64 and by the Opposition, when they were in power, that these studies are necessary and that they will take some little time.
I have told the Committee what the Council is doing about the problem, and I am certain that there is as much sincerity on the benches opposite about the matter as there is on this side of the Committee. I am aware of the war widows who were referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I sincerely hope that after the explanation that I have given the Amendment will be withdrawn, so as to enable the Committee to speed ahead and get the Bill, thereby ensuring that people will be helped as quickly as possible.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The hon. Member is very inconsistent. He began by saying that he was sickened by the hypocrisy on this side of the Committee, but he ended by saying that he recognised that there was as much sincerity on this side as on his side. I accept what he last said. If he were not so busy looking for hypocrisy in others he would not have missed the whole point of the Amendment, which is simply this: because the Government have altered the precise standing of the 10s. widow—and whether that is right or wrong I am not here to argue—by raising the pension from 10s. to 30s. they have altered the entire premises on which the benefits relating to the industrial injuries widow and other types of widow are based.
They have also altered the premises on which what I might describe as the underage war widow stood. On their own volition they have shifted the ground completely and so what I am saying to them tonight is that, only in fairness, must they shift it for all and not only for some.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: As an ex-Minister in the previous Government, what does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by saying that the present Government "whether rightly or wrongly" improved the position of the 10s. widow? Is he opposed to that improvement?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Not at all. I said, "rightly or wrongly, they have altered the case of the 10s. widow." I am not here to argue that point tonight. I should be out of order if I did so.

Mr. Allason: Might I ask the Minister to think again about this? Is the Parliamentary Secretary really saying that for months, or perhaps years, these widows are to be at a lower rate than the 10s. widow, soon to be the 30s. widow? Is he saying that they are to be in a worse state than these others? Surely, on the rising tide principle he could at least let them go to 30s. a week and then if when the report comes out they are to get more than that, that can be done. In the meantime, would it not be possible to let the rising tide principle take care of it?

Mr. Harold Davies: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee know that the majority of these people will now go up to 30s. a week. I therefore think, without reiterating the argument, that it will help the Committee and help the purpose which some of us have in mind, if we could now go ahead with the rest of the Bill. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will withdraw this Amendment in view of what I think has been the value of our debate. He knows the position about the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. If he does not agree to this, I will recommend to the Committee that we take the matter into the Division Lobby.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain why it is that he says that the majority of these widows would go up to 30s.?

Mr. Davies: This is as a result of the legislation which we shall get if this Committee helps us to get it.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7.—(COMMENCEMENT, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSTRUCTION.)

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 24, line 10, at the end to insert:
but no such day shall be later than 1st January 1965".

The Chairman: It will be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss Amendment No. 20, in page 24, line 10, at end insert:
Provided that the increases in retirement pensions awarded under this Act shall be paid retrospectively to 1st January 1965.

Mr. Lubbock: The Parliamentary Secretary said in his concluding remarks on the last Amendment that he hoped that we could speed ahead and get the Bill as soon as possible. The last thing I want to do is to delay it. I think, however, that if we can spend until five o'clock this morning arguing about caviar and birds' eggs, we can spend a little time this evening on the needs of the retirement pensioners. That is what I want to address my remarks to now.
Before I say anything else, I want to give hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite credit for introducing the Bill. I think that if the Tories had still been in power, we should not be discussing it today. Whatever I may say later I want that to be borne in mind. I am grateful to the Government for bringing forward this Bill so early in the lifetime of the present Parliament. That has been appreciated by all hon. Members.
This Amendment deals with a very important point which I think is of equal concern to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, whether we can improve these benefits for the retirement pensioners and others who are to receive increases under the Bill at a date nearer than the end of March. For the purposes of discussion we have proposed 1st January, 1965. I should prefer to bring that date forward to before Christmas, but we have been reasonable


and put down an Amendment in terms which we think it possible to obtain.
I start from the proposition that every hon. Member believes that these increases should be paid as soon as possible. I am quite certain that no one would dissent from that. I think it particularly hard that pensioners should have to bear the rigours of another winter, when their expenses are bound to be at a maximum, without the benefit of the proposed increases
Only this morning I received a letter from the Biggin Hill branch of the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners' Associations. I am sure that the remarks in the letter would be echoed by all other branches of that Association in the country. The writer states:
From now to the end of March there will be many aged persons suffering from the cold weather due to lack of fuel. Yes, remind Mr. Wilson about those he mentioned, suffering poverty behind lace curtains. Now is the time for him to do more than use propaganda slogans.
This is what I am appealing to the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends to do for these old people. I do not know whether she has read the leading articles on this subject which appeared in the Sun during the last two days, but I think that the writer put his finger on the nub of this problem. On 1st December the leading article began:
Winter kills from 20,000 to 100,000 old people in Britain every year. And this winter will be no exception.
The article goes to say that thousands of old people will die during the winter because of the cold, lack of nourishment and fuel, and means either to heat their dwellings or to buy proper food to live on. It states:
It is a horrifying state of affairs in Britain, 1964.
I do not agree with the conclusion drawn in the article:
What can the Government do to ease the hardship this winter? The sad answer is—not much.
I consider that to be an utterly defeatist conclusion and one which my colleagues and I are not prepared to accept. I would go a long way with what was said in the leading article on the following day about the help which could be given to retirement pensioners by voluntary organizations

through visits and through assistance in various ways. I commend the ideas contained in the leading article which appeared on 2nd December.
I should also like to draw the attention of the right hon. Lady to a similar article which appeared in the Daily Mirror of 1st December, in which we were told:
Many of the old folk spent only 4s. 6d. a day on food, which is too little to enable them to buy enough meat, fruit and vegetables.'
I hope that the right hon. Lady will appreciate that these views expressed in our leading dailies are shared by the vast majority of people, who are much concerned about this problem.
I could understand the delays which are occurring in the payment of improved benefits were the Tories still in power. From yesterday's discussions it would seem that port wine is more important to them than the problems of old-age pensioners. The hon. Member for Gospot and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) and the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) argued strongly yesterday afternoon about the hardships that will be suffered by port wine drinkers.
10.15 p.m.
As we have had a change of Government in the last few weeks I expected that something would be done to reduce the amount of time between bringing forward a Bill of this type and putting its benefits into effect, particularly when I look back at some of the remarks made by hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they were in Opposition. I shall not recite them all, but I might just remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that during the Second Reading debate of the National Insurance Bill on 15th November, 1960, he said:
To delay these benefits "—
that is, the benefits provided by that Measure—
until the firt week in April is intolerable. 'He gives twice who gives quickly'.
How heartily I echo that sentiment:
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken refuge in administrative


difficulty, because we should not have believed him if he had."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1960; Vol. 630, c. 238.]
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not blame some of us on this side of the Committee if we now refuse to believe him if he takes refuge in administrative difficulties.
What alternatives has the Minister examined? What suggestions for getting over what I admit to be a difficult problem have been put forward by hon. Members opposite and considered by the right hon. Lady? I understand that at a two-and-a-half-hour meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party on 18th November she dealt with a number of questions put by her right hon. and hon. Friends, but I do not consider that a private party meeting is the right place to discuss matters of supreme public importance. If the right hon. Lady gave an explanation that satisfied her hon. Friends, it is only right and proper that she should now repeat that speech for the benefit not only of the Committee, but of the country's retirement pensioners—

Miss Herbison: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present during the Second Reading debate, but if he reads in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I said on that occasion he will find exactly the same explanation as I gave to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Lubbock: If that was all the explanation that the right hon. Lady gave to her hon. Friends, I am extremely surprised that they should have accepted it so meekly.
I shall not rehearse all the various alternatives there are, and which the right hon. Lady might consider. That is not up to me I am not the Minister. The right hon. Lady has the resources of her own Department to call on. I should like, however, to comment on some of the suggestions that various newspapers have reported to have been made by her hon. Friends. I do not claim any originality for these at all, but they have some force, and they have not so far been answered. I believe that the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) have made various suggestions which the right hon. Lady has not been able to counter.
We read in the Daily Mail of 19th November, 1964:
A group of veteran M.P.s"—
I am sure that that refers to length of service rather than to age—
suggested that one alternative might be to back-date the pensions increases to the beginning of last week and then pay out the extra money in lump sums after the new scales of benefit came into operation.
I understand that the right hon. Lady has claimed that the real difficulty is in altering all the books, but that suggestion gets over that hurdle quite neatly.
Another suggestion also seemed to avoid that difficulty. This appears to have emanated from the hon. Member for Ashfield and is reported in The Guardian of 20th November. The report said:
Mr. Warbey wants Miss Herbison to short-circuit the administrative difficulty involved in paying out the new benefits before 29th March by the simple expedient of declaring double benefit payments in three separate three weeks between now and the end of March. This would give pensioners more or less what they would receive if the new scales came into force at once.
Those are just two suggestions among the many which might have been made. I dare say that the right hon. Lady will hear a few more from the benches opposite tonight. This leads me to the conclusion that the administrative difficulties are by no means as insuperable as we were told at the beginning.
We come now to the second objection which the right hon. Lady certainly did not deal with in her speech, because I think that it has only emerged since then. This is that the "gnomes of Zurich" might be displeased if these increases were brought forward to an earlier date. If that is so, if the gnomes of Zurich are the problem and it has nothing to do with administrative difficulties, then the Committee and the pensioners should be told that that is the reason. I might remark about the gnomes of Zurich—a wonderfully evocative phrase—that I have always imagined the international bankers in Zurich with brush cuts and lederhosen rather than as the diminutive types that the First Secretary of State seems to imagine.
If this proposal worries international bankers, however, then, providing we increase the contributions at the same time


as we increase the benefits, and draw this to their attention, they will surely not worry about the economic situation, since, in the financial memorandum to the Bill, the right hon. Lady explains that the 2s. increase in contributions almost exactly balances the amount of the benefits that will be paid out.
It might be argued that most of the pensioners who receive the 12s. 6d. increase will spend most of it whereas those who pay the extra contribution are, on balance, savers and, therefore, that the transfer of spending power from one class to another is likely to be inflationary. But one must examine the sums involved. By paying the increases three months earlier we should be transferring about £70 million from people who pay contributions to the recipients of the benefits, but only a small fraction of that sum would actually be turned from saving into spending, because one might contend that the vast majority who pay the contributions are those who are in receipt of less than £16 to £17 a week, which is roughly the average national earnings, and that they are most unlikely to save a great deal of money.
Therefore, one should not consider the whole of the £70 million as being transferred from saving to spending but only some fairly small fraction of it which the right hon. Lady, with all the resources of her Department, is better able to assess than I am. But if the international bankers really think that this transfer from saving to spending would ruin the economy, then the situation is even more desperate than it has been painted by the Government.
I appeal to the right hon. Lady to make a gesture tonight to the retirement pensioners, who have to face another winter on the existing benefits. Even if she cannot go all the way with me, let her give them some earnest of her sympathy with the plight they have to suffer over Christmas and the New Year. Then we shall await the forthcoming review of social security arrangements as a whole with more confidence. By all means and above everything, let the right hon. Lady be completely frank with the Committee in the explanation of the difficulties which have prevented her from paying these increases earlier.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) referred to the explanations that my right hon. Friend gave during the course of the discussions of the administrative difficulties. I assert that these administrative difficulties are genuine. When my right hon. Friend, either in Parliament or in discussions with her colleagues, gave an outline of the administrative circumstances, she was merely giving an account of the facts as they exist. It is important to start on this basis. I shall in due course make suggestions to my right hon. Friend which will not greatly differ from those made by the hon. Member for Orpington, but it should be established that we face a twofold problem and that when my right hon. Friend outlined the administrative obstacles she was describing a difficult position which would have faced any Minister of Pensions on taking office.
The discussion has moved on from there, because all over the country people are giving a general welcome to the Bill. The correspondence which I and all other hon. Members have received proves this conclusively. The Bill is regarded by all those who have written to me as an excellent piece of social reform and improvement. It is a piece of social legislation which the Tory Party, had it been by some mischance returned at the General Election, would never have introduced and never intended to introduce. Whilst accepting it as a most important Bill which is bringing long overdue relief to old-age and other pensioners, many thousands of people have expressed their deep regret that in introducing the Measure it has so far not been agreed by my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet that we can find a way of either paying the increased pensions from a much earlier date in full, or, if that were to be proved to be administratively impossible, reducing by some other method the long waiting period of 20 weeks.
My right hon. Friend was again correct when she pointed out that no machinery for speeding up the process was left behind by the previous Administration which she could have used. Having found herself in that position, my right hon. Friend, as was obvious to all her colleagues who have worked with her on this subject for many years, was as

anxious as any one of us or as any hon. Member on either side of the Committee, and certainly more anxious than some hon. Members opposite, to bring in these increases at the earliest possible moment. There is no dispute about that. I want to put it on record that this is clearly understood by people who write to their Members of Parliament.
10.30 p.m.
We as Members of Parliament have a further duty. It is estimated that during the next 20 weeks a great many people will suffer severe hardship. When we were on the other side of the House it was the main burden of our case that these increases had been long overdue, and it is quite clear that whilst it may not be possible to bring into action the required administrative machinery to start paying the increases before Christmas, it is equally common ground—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington—that it would be possible to devise some other method which would give rough and ready justice.
I am here quoting a phrase which was first used not by me, but by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance herself. She coined the phrase in her search for a method of speeding up the process, and that is another earnest of her anxiety to try to find a solution.
In making certain proposals to my colleagues in the Government I am fully conscious that when one is giving rough and ready justice to the pensioners there are bound to be left some rough edges administratively. The proposal that I commend particularly to the Committee and to the Cabinet is perfectly straightforward. It was first developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), but it will interest my hon. Friend to know that several pensioners with long experience have written to me making similar proposals after their own scrutiny of the difficulties surrounding the situation. Other hon. Members will have had similar experience.
It is not too late to consider this proposal seriously. I am proposing that, given the fact that the full increases cannot be paid immediately or at the


beginning of the year, the Committee should agree, on the recommendation of the Government, that not later than 1st January, on three particular dates, three lump sums—double payments of the pension—should be paid to each old-age pensioner. This would leave a number of people—it is estimated a rather small percentage compared to the bulk of the pensioners—in receipt perhaps of a slight over-payment or a slight under-payment. I would remind my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet that this is nothing unusual. The Inland Revenue works on this principle and has done so most successfully for many years. In fact, it allows a period of six years during which people either owe money to the Inland Revenue—and very large sums; not the small sums that we are considering tonight—or are owed considerable sums by the Inland Revenue.
My proposal is that after the three lump-sum payments have been made during the following nine months the staff at the Ministry should then make up the account. This would have the great advantage of bringing an additional income to the pensioners. It would also—we do not want to underestimate it—have the advantage of improving the credit of the old-age pensioners. It is important that they should be able to look forward to three additional payments during these bitter winter months. It is the small additional sums and the certainty that they will come to the old-age pensioners that will make a great difference to them. I am completely convinced that all my colleagues are with me in wanting to do this if it can possibly he done.
There are some other difficulties which I will consider briefly. It has been clearly found that among the real difficulties facing an Administration who would want to adopt the kind of proposal I have made are, first, a financial difficulty at home, and, secondly, a problem of international monetary finance and politics abroad. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that it is the duty of hon. Members to look at these problems, to take the people into our confidence and to let them judge what can and what cannot be done.
It is clear that my proposal would involve an additional sum of money which must be raised by the Government. Esti-

mates have been made. I have made my own and it differs little from others which have been made by people who are officially advised and better qualified to make such estimates. I will give my own figures and they can, if necessary, be criticised.
I estimate that these three lump-sum payments would involve an additional raising of £66 million. I suggest that methods have already been proposed for raising this amount, and in this I am in no way ahead of my right hon. Friend, for to my certain knowledge many of the things about which I am speaking have been in her mind and have been considered by her before they were considered by me. I further suggest that it should be possible to raise the money in this way. First, the National Insurance Fund should be asked to make a contribution of £17½ million. Next, the Treasury should be asked to make a contribution of £13 million.
I suggest that we should then decide, as a House of Commons, on the recommendation of the Government, that those who are to pay the increased contributions of 2s. per week as planned from next April should be asked to pay the increase from 1st February. I am confident, from the experience I and other hon. Members have had, that those who are at work earning wages, salaries and other incomes would agree to do this if we decided to take that decision. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
This would produce just over £60 million and it would be divided into the three sections I have indicated. It would, I suggest, be a policy which Ministers would be in a position to defend at home and abroad as not being inflationary, because if we examine the figures I have mentioned it will be seen that we would be withdrawing from those who are to pay the higher contributions a little earlier the precise equivalent of the sum that would be paid a little earlier to our old-age pensioners.
It is certain that many of the things which the old-age pensioners would then be able to buy with the additional small sums which they would receive a little earlier would not be items that would have to be imported from abroad. They would be the very necessities of life, as we all know. They would be able to increase the amount of warmth they are


able to provide for themselves during the winter, as well as being able to buy a certain amount of extra food. In this way we should have a policy which would stand up not only on moral, but on ethical grounds, a sensible policy which would not add to any potential inflationary problems.
At this stage of the argument there is introduced another quantity. It is the question, "Would it be wise or politically advisable in this serious stage of our international financial position, at a time when we are to some extent dependent on confidence, not only in sterling but in the way the British economy will be strengthened and built up, to bring in any additional Estimate or contributions which could then be held by people, perhaps people who are ill-informed about our affairs, as not being in the direction of adding firmness and stability to the British economy?"
My answer to that—and it ought to be the answer of my colleagues in the Cabinet—is this. If it is a matter of allowing our old people to have a slightly better and healthier period over the winter which is to come, then I would accept a certain amount of misunderstanding by the bankers abroad. But I do not think that it is even necessary, or that it is likely to happen.
It is quite possible so to accept my proposal and to implement it with the general approval of the nation that no one would really dare to oppose the proposal if it were introduced by the Government and they were to say, "We are in a difficult situation. It is true that we must see to it that our credit is maintained by the actions we take and also by the actions which we do not take, but in this case we are making to our own people an appeal that those who at work and in employment should make a slight additional contribution earlier than they were originally called upon to do. This is a mere transfer of a certain amount of spending power from one section of our people to another section of our people who are particularly in need of that additional small amount of spending power." I believe that these measures, in the long run, would not be misunderstood.
There are many colleagues of mine who wish to speak in this debate. I

therefore conclude with this point. There may be some argument advanced, perhaps by members of the Executive, maybe even by senior members of the Executive, that this matter has been discussed on several occasions; decisions have been come to; the hour is late. But here the matter is raised again in some detail, and a new appeal is made to them. I give them this advice. This is the House of Commons. It is not a weakness to listen to the counsel of the House of Commons. It is a traditional strength of our Parliamentary democracy; this is how we work to reach agreement—as Members of the Commons, to reach agreement with one's own supporters. It is the national process of advancing our democratic discussions.
This is a Government who have the confidence of the whole of the Labour movement and a great part of the electorate. This is an Administration to whom we look to make our economy sound and to lead us to an age of improved social legislation. They have the strength, even at this late hour, to listen to the voice of the House of Commons; they have the strength to say tonight, "We cannot do all you want us to do, we cannot do all we ourselves want to do, but it is possible to find a way to make some improvements in the position, and to bring some aid and comfort to our old people before the winter is over."
I hope and pray that they will receive this request in the spirit in which it is put to them, and respond accordingly.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) began his speech with some emollient words to this side of the Committee, and I think that that is a very good way to begin any speech. He congratulated the Government on the introduction of this Measure. I believe that his Amendment is a greatly beneficial one. I think it is very good for the Government, for the Labour Party, and for the Committee that this matter should be fully debated in the open, so that the whole country can hear it.
I think that it is good, first of all, because it puts the whole argument in a proper perspective, and, perhaps, in a somewhat different perspective from that


in which the newspapers have put it. If we read the accounts in the newspapers of what has happened on this question in the last two or three weeks we find that they may give a very different account from the true account of what is the opinion of my hon. Friends about the Bill as a whole. It is, therefore, a very good thing that we should have a discussion so as to remove any such impressions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) went very far towards doing so.
This is an extremely good Bill, first, because of the increased scales of benefit, the biggest-ever single increase except that passed by the Labour Government in 1946; it is an extremely good Bill because of the varied number of pensioners covered by it; and it is an extremely good Bill because there is to be no jiggery-pokery this time by which people were given increases in pensions but did not benefit because there had not been a satisfactory increase in the National Assistance rates. On those three counts, and many others which we could recapitulate, it is an extremely good Bill.
Moreover, my enthusiasm for the Bill has been greatly increased by sitting here most of the day listening to the further debate. I have been gratified to hear it stated so clearly that the Government will not wait for the kind of inquiry for which hon. Members opposite have asked. The Government have said that they will govern and will have their own survey. The Government will decide what will happen, and they will not be content with the kind of rigmarole proposed by hon. Members opposite. The Government will not have an interminable inquiry. Some Members opposite asked for a Royal Commission to examine what we should do about the review. When I was a small boy, following the affairs of the House of Commons as closely as I could, I asked my father what a Royal Commission was. He said, "It is a broody hen sitting on a china egg". Yet that has been recommended by hon. Members opposite as a method of dealing with further reviews. We think that this is a very good Bill, and that is why we want to get it into operation as quickly as possible.
Secondly, it is important that we should have this debate. It is proper for political parties to have discussions and private meetings. I dare say that even the Liberal Party has one, if we can call it a meeting. That is quite proper. But it is in the House that we are answerable to our constituents. It is in the House that we must explain to our constituents our attitude to Bills, why we vote in a particular way, what is our attitude to a general Measure, what are our qualifications and why we have reached particular conclusions. I believe that a Labour Government are all the more eager to do that than anyone else. It is, therefore, right that this matter, which has caused such anxiety, not only to back-bench Members but to the Government, to my right hon. Friend, and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, should be revealed clearly in the House so that the whole country can understand the position.
The third reason why it is so important that the debate should take place is that it would have been utterly intolerable if. after there had been so much discussion and disturbance of mind both among Members of Parliament and among the public outside, there had been no debate. It would have looked like a conspiracy and it would have done grievous injury to the Government and to the House of Commons. For all those reasons, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for having put down the Amendment. Having said all that, because it is an extremely good Bill we want to get it into operation as soon as we can.
I think that anyone who listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone would agree that he made an extremely serious and well thought out case. It was made with absolute earnestness and thoroughness. He made many points much better than I could have made them, and I do not propose to go over them again because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in this debate.
I wholeheartedly support the proposal made by my hon. Friend, which, I think, was first proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), that this idea should be considered afresh by the Government. I say considered afresh because we know that they have already considered it. My hon. Friend


the Member for Penistone elaborated the proposal with further financial details, and when my right hon. Friend replies we would like to hear her detailed comments on the figures given by my hon. Friend.
Old-age pensioners can work these things out for themselves. They are capable of debating these matters. Those of us who have been to meetings of old-age pensioners, and meetings of the National Association of Old-Age Pensions' Federation know that they are very well informed, as they have a right to be, on all financial matters concerning their pensions. They are quite capable of carrying on the debates which we have in this House. I hope that the proposal will be seriously considered by the Government.
When Bills are going through the House there is a special procedure which enables the Government to consider matters and come back at a later stage to give their opinion on matters which have been raised. We are debating this Bill in the same terms as we debate other Bills. When proposals are made, in Committee, it is open to the Government, if they cannot give an opinion immediately, to say that they will come back on Report and give a further account to the House. I hope, therefore, that we will have a full reply on that score.
There is another possibility, although I do not think that it is as good a one as that proposed by my hon. Friend. If it is thought the combination of factors referred to by my hon. Friend will prevent this operation being put into effect on the date suggested, there is a further alternative. If there were some form of retrospection, possibly, of course, to before Christmas, but if not to then, to some other date, it would be an advance on what we are offered now.
One of the objections to doing that might be that the money will not have been secured from the extra contributions. If that is the case, let us see what retrospective payments could be made by, say, £30 million of contributions from taxation which would be introduced in the next Budget. It would be an undertaking given to the pensioners now that they were going to get it then.
A number of pensioners know about putting things on the slate, and they can put things on the slate if they know that they will receive the money later.
No doubt many of my hon. Friends will have other proposals to make, but those are two serious proposals about which we ask for a reply.
We have all heard rumours and hints—and the hon. Member for Orpington referred to them—about the gnomes of Zurich and their part in this affair. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, referred to the matter in his Second Reading speech, when he said:
I am bound to say that if we had not made the announcement when we did, it would have been very difficult to make it now, having regard to the worsened economic situation.
I am not blaming him for making such a statement, but it aroused some concern. He went on:
That, again, is an indication of the coverage and determination of the Government to see that the poor and needy shall not suffer, come what may, and if the international financiers do not like it they must lump it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1404.]
That is what we want to say from the House of Commons today. We want to say it not only in relation to the Bill, but in relation to the earlier payments which my right hon. Friends have themselves said that they would like to make.
It is difficult to know how the minds of the international financiers work. Apparently the proposition is that because they are very stupid people we must take a lot of stupid actions to impress them. I gather that that is how international finance works. Even though the payments that we would make to the old-age pensioners under the scheme put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, or under the retrospective payments scheme that I have proposed, would obviously not be inflationary to any great extent, if at all, these international financiers detest the idea of a Government in this country, in the midst of a crisis, deciding to pay more to old-age pensioners.
The Daily Telegraph has been objecting, too. It asks how we can expect people in foreign countries to approve when we are giving out largesse—as the newspaper puts it—to people who do


not need it. It is disgraceful that the newspaper should have used such words as this. I t may be that the best way in which we can show our determination to these curious gentlemen who apparently have some control over our affairs is to ensure that as quickly as possible we are relieved of any necessity of having to take their opinion into account.
If these people object to the payment of a small number of millions of pounds to help the neediest people in the country, what must their minds be like? I hope that the Government will not be deterred from considering the proposals made on that account, and that they will give the most serious consideration to the proposals which have been put forward. I can assure the Government—speaking for myself and many other people—that because we press this case as hard as we can it does not mean that we do not understand what the Government have achieved, and what they are determined to achieve in the future.
I have heard some people comparing this crisis with that of 1931, in the sense that the international financiers are bringing pressure to bear on a Labour Government. But there is a great difference between this Government and the Labour Government of 1931. That Government were pushed out of power reducing benefits; this Government, as one of their first acts, have increased benefits on the scale that they have described, and which we shall be glad to defend throughout the country.
I say to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that this debate and the disturbance of mind inside the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the Labour Party throughout the country, are not things of which the Government need be afraid. They are things of which they can be as proud as the rest of us.

Mr. Curran: To my mind the question is simple: the Government think that they can afford the increase in pensions. I take their word for it. It is their decision, and to me that is the end of the matter. But since they are able to do so, why are they unable to make the payments before next March?
On this matter, as on the question of the earnings rule, I have criticised my own Government when they have stated

that administrative difficulties have meant that increases in pensions have had to be delayed. I have refused to be impressed. I am no more impressed when such an excuse is given by the other side than when it is put forward by my own Front Bench. I hope that the right hon. Lady will throw a little more daylight on these administrative difficulties. As I understand her, we are dealing with about 6 million pensioners. Except for about 250,000, all these are entitled to the full increase—12s. 6d. for the single person and 25s. for the married couple.
11.0 p.m.
About a quarter of a million of the 6 million are not entitled to the proposed increase because they have not a sufficient contribution record. That means that, of the 6 million, 23 in every 24 are entitled to the full increase, and one in 24 is not. What is the administrative impossibility about paying the straight increase to the whole 6 million, and then making an abatement later in respect of the one in 24 not entitled to that full increase?
I never understood the answer to that question when it came from my own Front Bench, and I very much hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to do better than my own Ministers in explaining it to me. I have never been able to understand why we should not pay the full increase to everybody, and then jog backwards to the tiny minority whose contribution records make it necessary to pay them less than the full sum.
I also want to take up a question that has been lurking in the background of this debate. I am very glad that it has been brought into the daylight. The question is: are the administrative difficulties the real obstacle, or are the Government delaying the pensions increases because of the gnomes of Zurich? That question deserves an answer, and it is also being asked outside this Chamber.
We are a capitalist society, and if we put a capitalist society in the hands of a party that proclaims that it does not believe in capitalism, wants to overturn it, and has no confidence in it, is it any wonder that the capitalist countries should lose confidence in us? If anyone is surprised at that I do not think it can be the Labour Party. What else do hon.


Members expect? If we put into power a party that proclaims that it is determined to bring capitalism to an end, why should we expect capitalist countries to have any confidence at all in what we are doing? I therefore decline to make any critical remarks about these gnomes of Zurich.
The fact is that this country cannot afford to be put under Socialist management. It is like putting a "pub" in the charge of a fanatical teetotal prohibitionist; obviously, his heart is not in the business. To suppose that foreigners are to be criticised or condemned because they refuse to have confidence in a party that is trying to run a capitalist country without believing in capitalism is completely idle.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) lay another ghost. It is quite true that, whoever else it may surprise, this situation should not surprise the Labour Party. The party found that out in 1931, when there was a massive withdrawal of confidence in a Socialist Government, just as there was a massive withdrawal of confidence in a Socialist Government in Britain last month.
We are now asking—and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is not the only one who is asking the question—whether history is beginning to repeat itself. Have the foreign banks refused to bail out the Socialist Government of Britain unless the Socialists hold up the pensions increase? This is a question which has to be answered. Are the Government holding up this increase in obedience to a banker's order? I hope that members of the Government will give a plain answer to this question. It is being asked extensively outside the House as well as inside.
I was going to suggest the answer. It is beginning to look as if the Labour Party has now changed its tune. It is no longer singing the "Red Flag"; it is singing "Gnome, Sweet Gnome". If the Government intend to tell us that the reason they cannot increase the pension now is simply because of administrative difficulties, then I urge them to clear up in plain English the question that lies at the back of a good many people's minds—whether the reason is not administrative, but the pressure of the foreign bankers.
There is a third question. I have put down an Amendment suggesting that, if the administrative difficulties make it impossible to pay this increase on 1st January, when we do pay them at the end of March we should backdate them. Again, I ask the question—and I hope that the Government will give an answer. Is there any administrative obstacle about backdating? If the Government are saying—as I think they are that they could afford to pay this increase now, were it not for administrative difficulties, then can they tell us what possible objection there can be to paying the increase at the end of March and backdating it?
I have spoken about opinion outside this House. We have been discussing—not on the Floor of the House, but among ourselves—the proposal for increasing our own salaries. I do not know whether this is accurate or not, but I have read that when we do increase our salaries we shall backdate them. I ask the Government to remember that if they are prepared to backdate our own salary increases, there are many people outside this Committee who will ask why they cannot similarly backdate the pensions increase. Why should there be one rule for the politicians, and another for the pensioners?
I hope that we will get tonight not a fog of words, but some plain language. Let us have plain English about these administrative difficulties, plain English about whether—

Mr. Harold Davies: I have listened so long to the hon. Member that his hypocritical attitude is becoming intolerable—absolutely damned intolerable. If this country is in any economic or financial difficulty, that has been inherited through the lack of economic policy and the lack of guts of his own party in not going to the country 12 months ago instead of playing politics.

Sir K. Joseph: I think it extra-ordinarily odd that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary—

Mr. Davies: I do not care.

Sir K. Joseph: —should rise to the Box in that way and use unparliamentary language.

Mr. R. T. Paget: On a point of order. Is it in order to have an intervention to an intervention? Surely


it is entirely out of order when the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) is still speaking?

The Deputy-Chairman: I called the hon. Member for Uxbridge. He gave way to the right hon. Member for Leeds. North-East (Sir K. Joseph).

Sir K. Joseph: The point which the Parliamentary Secretary should remember is that when his Government came to power, and for several weeks afterwards, sterling was strong and confidence was strong. It was only the conduct of him and his right hon. and hon. Friends which confiscated foreign confidence in this country.

Mr. Curran: I want to take up the intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary. He asserted that the crisis of confidence long ante-dated the election. I ask him to agree—I do not think that it is asking too much—that, if we put into power an anti-capitalist party, capitalists will lose confidence in it.

Mr. Harold Davies: This is another argument that holds no water. Does not the hon. Member know that every capitalist State, including Britain, is struggling for markets in China and the Soviet Union?

Mr. Curran: What on earth has China to do with the question of whether we should backdate pensions? I am simply asking the Government to clear up the three points I have put. I want to know, in plain English, whether a banker's order has been made about the pensions increases and about backdating. I am asking for information.
I am glad that the Government feel confident that they are able to afford these increases. If they are able to afford them, good luck to them. I am just as anxious to give more money to the pensioners as they are.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I wonder whether we might abandon the rather extraneous subjects which have engendered a little heat during the last few minutes and the attempt of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)—who ought to know better—to divert the course of the debate from the matter we were discussing seriously before he introduced a rather silly piece of political propaganda.
Let us get back to the serious matter which, I am sure, is deeply felt by all Members of good will on both sides of the Committee who are not conducting this debate for the purpose of showing off or for making propaganda, but out of deep feelings.
I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). All of us would like, if it were possible—and I hope that it is possible in some form or other—the old people to get a little earlier the benefits of the very fine Bill which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is putting forward.
This is a serious subject. We are talking about several millions of hard-up people. I do not know how other hon. Members feel about it, but in my early life I lived in a hard-up condition and I remember hard-up parents and hard-up grandparents. I wish that people would not make jokes or party propaganda out of it.
I have the honour now to represent, after some vicissitudes, a not very prosperous part of East London, where many people are much worse off than you, Sir Samuel, or I, or any other hon. Member. They will be worse off between now and 29th March.
I do not believe there is any monopoly of feeling for these people on this side of the Committee. I do not believe there is any monopoly of feeling about them on the Front Bench as against the back benches, or on the back benches as against the Front Bench. Please let us deal with this as a human problem and with a sense of the responsibility we have.
Since I say these things, I hope that I may add, without any allegation of unction, that, in the discussions there have been about this during the last few weeks—mostly in the Press because this is the first occasion on which we have debated the matter in full in this Chamber, which, I agree passionately, is the right place for it—a picture has been built up of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance as being a sort of "hard hearted Hanna", resisting pressure from her hon. Friends because she did not care.
11.15 p.m.
I think that it is no secret that some of my hon. Friends and I have had a little battle with her these last few weeks; but, having said that, I most bitterly resent this picture which some people have tried to create of the Minister, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not caring anything at all about the old people. There is not one word of truth in it.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance I have known for a long time. She is only a "little girl"; indeed, I have a daughter bigger than she, but she has a heart as big as a football and if she could find an opportunity to do what we are asking, then she would find it. All we ask is that she, and the Chancellor of the Duchy, should think just a little harder in an effort to find some way out of this difficulty.
I thought that we were listening to a good debate and I was somewhat diffident to intervene in it; but after the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), which were powerful and formidable contributions to the subject, I considered that it was a pity that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) should have introduced extraneous matter and rather spoiled the situation.
Do please not let us have any hypocrisy about this matter. The facts of life are hard; the facts of economic life are hard, and when one is defending a difficult economic situation—and we all now know that the economic situation of the country which the present Administration inherited is a good deal worse than was thought—one has no right to demand expenditure unless one sometimes is prepared to support also the unpopular measures for getting the money necessary for that expenditure.
I say that some hon. Members opposite—and in this instance I would put "honourable" in inverted commas—who demand that we should pay without collecting the means for payment are—well, in deference to you, Sir Samuel, I will not end the sentence. This is the only objection I have to the question before

us, as outlined by the hon. Member for Orpington. If I may say without impropriety, I have a soft spot for the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he moved his Amendment in characteristic fashion, with moderation, with restraint, and with an obvious sense of conviction. We all respect him, and for my part I would say that when the time comes for him to apply for membership of the Labour Party I shall be very happy to sponsor his application.
At the same time, what I have against him is that even his party voted down half of the proposal—not the whole, as did the Conservative Party—seeking the means for paying for the supplement he is now demanding; and if it was only on that ground I could not support his Amendment if he carried it to a Division. There is, however, another ground. Some of us on this side of the Committee, if I may employ the now conventional expression, "having done our homework", know that the method he proposes for achieving the result we all want to see is not practicable.
I was one of those who talked of putting computers on to this job, but to do that one has to prepare the data for the computers; and that is a big job. It is a standing shame on those hon. Members opposite to know that they never prepared that data in such a form that this operation could be carried out.
I am amazed that even one of the less responsible hon. Members of the party opposite, the hon. Member for Uxbridge, should have the effrontery to get up and address the Committee on the Amendment when hon. Members opposite know that they left the situation in such a state when they went out of office that the old-age pensioners could not have got a rise for 12 months, never mind four months. So let us clear the hypocrisy and all the smears and cant out of the way.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith (Chislehurst): The hon. Gentleman has just said that under the previous Administration there would not have been an increase of pensions in 12 months. Is he suggesting that at any time we claimed that administrative difficulties made a 12 months' delay necessary because the necessary machinery would take that long?

Mr. Mikardo: No, I am not suggesting that the machinery takes 12 months. What I suggest is that the intention and the machinery together take 12 months. The machinery takes four or five months; the intention takes seven or eight months.
What is manifestly clear is that when the present Government came to office right hon. Gentlemen opposite had not even started to think about the intention. That is what I suggest, and the right hon. Lady, had she still been in office—she left it some time ago, and, therefore, one cannot hold her responsible for all the misdeeds of her right hon. Friends—would have known that this was the case.
Having said all this, I come back to the point from which I started, which is a lot of old people in Poplar. In Chislehurst, if may say this to the right hon. Lady, they are not, on the whole, averagely so hard up as in Poplar, in Ebbw Vale, in Penistone and in Uxbridge. Anywhere one looks there are many people, even those on National Assistance, who are very hard up. There are hundreds of thousands of them—I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows this, because she has first-hand experience of it—who would be entitled to National Assistance supplement if they applied for it, but who do not so apply. Some of them do not apply because they are too proud, perhaps wrongly too proud, or because they do not understand that National Assistance is not largesse, but a right.
Some of them do not apply because they just do not know the law, and there are hundreds of thousands of them who are below the minimum standard laid down in the National Assistance regulations as being the minimum necessary to sustain life in a reasonable state of health, and who are, therefore, entitled to claim National Assistance supplement, but who, for whatever reason, good or bad—let us not be superior about this—do not claim. They are the people about whom I am talking. I am not talking about computers or about the gnomes of Zurich. I am not talking about clever things, but about those people. Hundreds of hon. Members, not all on one side of the Committee, care about them.
It is on these grounds that I say to my right hon. Friends that, happily, the date

of operation of these arrangements is not in the Bill. If it were, then when we depart from here tonight, or in the small hours of tomorrow morning, the situation would be committed and the Government could depart from the Committee without loss of face. We shall all have to shrug our shoulders and tell our constituents, "We have done our best, but there is no change". Happily, that is not the situation. The date is to be laid down by regulation and, therefore, the Minister will have jurisdiction over this question.
As I understand the situation, it is not a question of either administrative difficulties or financial stringency. It is a bit of both. There are administrative difficulties about some methods of doing what we would all like to do. The administrative difficulties in doing the job in the precise terms of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Orpington are quite overwhelming. Therefore, if he chose to divide the Committee I could not be with him.
But there are ways of doing the thing administratively which would be rough and ready and create some injustices and might involve some overpayment. We have had a revolution this week. Some workers in the dockyard in my native City of Portsmouth were, between them, paid £6,700 more than they were entitled to. A few years ago the Treasury would never have said for a moment that it would not claim every penny back. This week we had an unparalleled revolution in the history of the financial administration of this country and the Treasury has said "All right, forget about this £6,700".
I understand that it is possible, with a bit of give and take and a bit of blurring at the margins, by some such method as proposed by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), or some retroactive payment which would enable old folks to get a bit more "on tick," to get over the administrative problems. We are all agreed about that.
Then comes the problem of paying for it. Here we come to those people in Zurich. I do not know why Zurich is always picked on. There are "bods" in Amsterdam and Tangiers who are just as bad. The people in Zurich, described as leprechauns, are supposed


to say that they will not allow the British Government to spend any money they have not collected in advance in taxation. I do not propose to go into whether that is right or wrong. My right hon. Friends know more about that than I do. The hon. Member for Uxbridge talked about it as though he knew a lot more, but he does not. My right hon. Friends know a lot more. They estimated, and I am prepared to take their judgment about this because they know more about it than I do, that to maintain confidence in foreign holders of sterling it was necessary, in introducing these pension increases from 29th March, to increase revenue from 29th March by an amount at least equal to, probably greater than, the amount we were giving. I accept that from them.
If they now say to us that the demands which my hon. Friends and I are making involve another £60 million—I take that figure used by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone—over and above that additional taxation which they have already levied, and that they are to take another £60 million, whether by a bit more on the stamp, as the hon. Member for Orpington proposed, or as I would prefer by way of other forms of direct taxation, not regressive—if the Government now say to us that to do this they would have to increase taxation beyond what they have already proposed, then I am sure my hon. Friends would be prepared—I know I certainly would—to support them up to the hilt. I ask hon. Members opposite whether they would be so prepared, because anyone who answers "No" to that question has no right to demand what is being demanded in this Amendment.
We are prepared to support my right hon. Friends on this. I apologise for having detained the Committee so long, especially after we had a late night last night, but I end as I began. I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, although I do not always agree with him, that the Government are to be much commended for the Bill. I entirely share the view that the suggestion that the Government has been withholding or hard-hearted in the matter of this date is entirely without foundation.
But, happily, this date is not in the Bill. It is not Holy Writ, it comes out in a regulation. It is not the Bible, it is apocryphal, and this gives my right hon. Friends time to think a bit more. We are not going to have any fancy business, any demonstration, any demagoguing, because nobody is trying to get any credit out of this, or give anyone else discredit, but I beg them in all sincerity to think about this again. If any of my right hon. Friends can get up and say tonight, "We have said what we have said, but between now and the time we bring in the regulation we will consider the matter", we on this side of the Committee will be very happy; and I think the hon. Member for Orpington and his hon. Friends will be very happy, and almost all the Committee will be very happy.
If that happens I think that we shall have seen the House of Commons in its best and in its greatest form, and true to its greatest traditions.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I would like to start by saying that I welcome the Bill, as indeed we all welcome it on this bench. It is one of the best pieces of legislation which has come before this Parliament so far. Indeed, it is one which has given great satisfaction and great relief to people throughout the length and breadth of the land.
In supporting the Amendment, I recognise, also, that there are real administrative difficulties. I do not want to minimise that fact, or to suggest that this is capable of easy solution. But, nevertheless, there seem to be two real issues in the mind of the Committee tonight, issues which may be regarded as possible objections to this Amendment.
The first is the cost. I would like briefly to say this about that. The cost may be £66 million, as one hon. Member has suggested, and on my calculation I agree with him. I think that that is about right, although it may be a shade more or a shade less. But one thing is certain. Whilst there is a reluctance on the part of the Government to enter upon an expenditure of £66 million at this time, nevertheless they are to receive the


benefit of the increase in the fuel tax immediately, and the benefit of the 15 per cent. surcharge immediately. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask that, as they are to get money in the bank, they should be prepared to write a cheque against that credit.
The second problem appears to be one of administration. I would like to put this thought to the Committee. If at this moment this country were facing a grave international crisis, or if there were a national emergency, I am quite certain that the ingenuity of the Government would be sufficient to deal with it, no matter what it might be. I believe that many thousands of old people are suffering an emergency. I do not think that that is overstating the case. I have seen in my constituency, as I believe every other hon. Member has seen, cases which, while they may not have brought tears to our eyes, have caused us some loss of sleep. The adoption of this proposal would he a measure, a small gesture, that would help to ease the suffering which we all dislike and against which we all want to fight.
The answer to the question whether the administrative problems are insuperable is quite simple. If the Committee decides that the payment of the increased pension is to begin on 1st January, it will begin on that date. There is no doubt about that at all. The administrative machinery will be devised. A way will be found of doing it, because there will be no alternative once the proposal has been accepted by the Committee. That is the power which is vested in right hon. and hon. Members.
I do not want to sentimentalise about the situation, but as I enter the Chamber—and, indeed, it is only a few weeks since I entered it for the first time—I am always conscious of a statue just outside the door, a statue of the architect of the National Insurance and welfare system—indeed, the architect of the old-age pension system. I believe that if he were here in this Chamber tonight he would not be prepared to tolerate a proposal which embraces the idea that Members of the House of Commons should have their own salary increases backdated whilst the old-age pensioners should not have their increased pensions in time for Christmas. That, I believe, is the one thing above all else which

is causing unrest, disquiet and dismay in the minds of so many old people.
It would be improper to argue now—indeed, I should be out of order—whether the fact that we are prepared to do this for ourselves is right or wrong; nevertheless, this is a point that has been made to me in letter after letter from my constituents—that we are prepared to do this for ourselves but are not prepared to do it for the old people. I know there is a great deal of difference in the cost involved, but I still believe that the argument is sound, and I believe that there is a great deal of sympathy for that point of view.
We have heard the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). If I may say so, for me his speech was rather moving, because it reminded me so much of his father, whom I always regarded as my political godfather. We have heard the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) advance reasonable arguments and ways in which this objective could be achieved. We know that it can be done. We on this bench believe that it must be done, and I hope that the Committee will so decide.
If, as has been suggested, the right hon. Lady is not able to accept this Amendment—I cannot believe that she will not; but if she is unable to do so—and if the matter is pressed to a Division, I would urge one thing. It is this. I urge hon. Members to remember, as they go into the Lobby, that if the Amendment is carried the old-age and retirement pensioners will receive this additional money in time for the Christmas holidays. They will, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, be able to use the credit that that will give them before Christmas.
One final point. For thousands of old-age pensioners this will be their last Christmas on earth.

Mr. William Warbey: I hope that the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) will not be taken as representative of the view of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) showed great understanding for the difficulties which are involved in the problem we are discussing. The hon. Member for Orpington was, I believe, trying to assist in bringing before the Government some of the ideas and suggestions which have


been adduced from many quarters in the last few weeks in an effort to find a way of overcoming the difficulties of performing a simple act of social justice to our old people.
If, as the hon. Member for Bodmin said, the Liberal Party is contemplating forcing this issue to a Division he is making a serious mistake. To begin with, my right hon. Friend is bound to tell the Committee, when she replies, that the Amendment is impracticable and unnecessary. I will not argue the reasons why it is impracticable. It is unnecessary by virtue of the wording of the part of the Schedule which the Amendment seeks to amend.
As drafted, the Schedule leaves my right hon. Friend completely free to listen to the views which have been put forward today and then to make her own decision about timing, for the Schedule states:
The provisions of this Act shall not come into force until such day as the Minister may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes of this Act or for the same purposes in relation to different cases or classes of case".
Nothing could be wider than that. No wider discretion could be given to my right hon. Friend to consider all the suggestions put forward and then to come to her own decision and embody it in the regulations which she will eventually bring forward.
11.45 p.m.
Having thus urged the hon. Member for Orpington to withdraw the Amendment, I now ask my right hon. Friend to do something to assist hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who would like to be helpful to her and to the old-age pensioners. My right hon. Friend will have to say "No" to this Amendment, but I hope that she will not say "No" to all the suggestions which have been put forward to her. She does not need to say "No"—now, anyhow, tonight. There is no need for her to say "No" to any of the suggestions which have been put forward in this debate. I should like her to say, when she replies, that she is taking these suggestions into account and will have them very much indeed in mind when in the order she defines the timing of this operation and the various parts of it. We

would not like to see the door closed this evening.
We should like to see time given for further thought, and this is the substance of what we are asked to do by those many old-age pensioners and other constituents. Because it is not only the old people who are interested in justice to the old people; it is every member of the community with a sense of social justice. What they are asking us to do is to think again and to see whether there is not some way of doing an act of social justice.
The old people cannot be fooled. The old people are willing to accept the argument that there were serious administrative difficulties about paying the increase as planned in accordance with the terms of former Acts and along the lines of procedure embodied in former Acts—that there were difficulties about performing this operation at an earlier date than 29th March. They accept all that, but they do not accept the argument that there were overwhelming technical difficulties in the way of introducing some kind of proposal along the lines which have been suggested by my hon. Friends and myself.
I have a letter from one—it is one of many—I would quote:
We have an old-age pensioners' get-together each Sunday morning and although I am totally deaf from the 1914–18 war I have a friend who writes everything down for me. We all realise the hopeless mess left us by the Tories"—
I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) will take note of that sentence—
and understand the near-hopeless economic situation. I suggest to the Chancellor that a double-pay week be given to old-age pensioners and war disabled in time for Christmas, and put the date for the official pay out forward from 29th March to 5th April. That is just asking for a loan to help many old people to get in a little more coal and food to sustain them during the coldest months. They could weather the week from 29th March to 5th April.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin will be interested in another sentence:
We all appreciate the M.P.s' increase, but wonder why we have been left out.
They do not begrudge hon. Members their increase. I have had other letters which recognise that the increase in Members' pay is an operation which was


deferred for two years by the penultimate predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, who two years ago recognised that, in social justice, hon. Members should then have an increase, but who refused, for political reasons, to implement it. The old people in my constituency understand this well and they are not tying the two issues together. They are concerned not about the increase in hon. Members' pay, but about the increase in the spending power of the middle classes and the richer sections of the community.
I wonder what they will say when they read tomorrow morning what was reported on the tape this afternoon—that we are heading for the biggest Christmas spending spree on record. The Bank of England announced that the increase in the note circulation compared with the same period last year is already £150 million, and it is estimated that by the time we reach Christmas day the total increase in the purchasing power in the hands of people who will spend it on luxuries in the shops during Christmas week will be £200 million.
It is not only the Zurich bankers who are saying this, but the City of London Banks and even the Bank of England: and if the bankers say that before we give any additional purchasing power to the old people we must mop up some surplus purchasing power from somewhere else, what about mopping up some of the £200 million surplus purchasing power which people who can afford it have withdrawn from their savings in the banks in order to spend it, not on necessities, not on coal, but on luxuries during the Christmas period? That is what could be done.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will recognise this: the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already taken steps to mop up surplus purchasing power through indirect taxation which, we are told, will raise £95 million in the current financial year before 31st March next. Surely the £65 million which we need is already balanced by that £95 million. If that is not good enough for the bankers, we could do a little more. For example, there is the extra Purchase Tax which will come in as a result of the extra £200 million spending.
How much will that bring in? At an average of 10 per cent., an extra £20 million will come into the revenue from this surplus purchasing power. If that is still not enough, my right hon. Friends have at their disposal the economic regulators, by which at any moment they can increase Purchase Tax and other indirect taxes by up to 10 per cent. If they want to mop up some of this surplus purchasing power which will be spent in this country during the next few weeks on a spending spree, they have the weapons at their disposal.

Miss Herbison: We have spent a fair time on these Amendments, and I think that it is right that we should do so. It is important that on a matter which is of great concern to the vast majority of Members, and to millions of people outside, we should have had this debate.
I want to deal, first, with the Amendments, and then with the general debate which has arisen on them. Amendment No. 19 would make it mandatory for all the provisions of the Bill, that is all the benefit and the contribution changes, to be brought into operation not later than 1st January. It is totally impracticable for a number of reasons.
Let me consider the contribution increases first. If the contribution increases were to operate from 1st January, the new stamps would have to be printed and available in Post Offices by 28th December. If one were considering ordinary printing—and we all have experience of having leaflets printed during election periods—this could be done almost overnight, but it cannot be done with stamps. These stamps are really money. They have to be printed under security conditions, so there is only one place at which they can be printed. That is one reason why it is impracticable to have the contributions as from 1st January.
After the most intensive examination—and I assure all hon. Members that it was a most intensive and probing examination—I had, most reluctantly, to come to the conclusion that 29th March was the earliest date on which we could pay the increase in retirement pensions without a grave risk of a total break down in the whole system.
I do not think that the Committee wants to be wearied by my giving all the reasons which I gave in detail on Second


Reading. Even at this late hour I ask those who have not read my speech on that occasion to go over that part of it in which I gave in detail the reasons why it was administratively impossible to have the retirement pensions paid before 29th March.
The Amendment covers sickness and unemployment benefit, too. Under the provisions of the Bill they are to be paid as from 25th January. That was the earliest date on which we could pay them because Christmas intervenes, and with the intervention of Christmas it is impossible to make it earlier than that date.
The extra cost of increasing all the benefits from a date not earlier than 1st January instead of from the dates in the Bill, that is, 25th January and 29th March, would be about £61 million. But even if it were practicable to advance the date of the increase in contributions a substantial proportion of that £61 million would still be uncovered by those contribution increases, because of the difficulties that I have described in getting the stamps ready. We should not be able to bring in the increases in contributions as early as we would want them.
I now turn to the Amendment dealing with retrospective payment. Again, there are grave difficulties. Retrospective payments would not cover the old people during the winter months. What we are all worrying about is what happens to the old people in the winter. It is clear, in spite of all that has been said, that the contribution increases could not be imposed retrospectively to cover the extra cost.

12 m.

Mr. Lubbock: If the old people knew that the payments were to be made retrospective to an earlier date they would be able to get credit from grocers and fuel merchants, and so on, in anticipation of those payments.

Miss Herbison: I doubt that very much. We are told that many of our old people are too proud to go for National Assistance, and I think that those old people would also be too proud to obtain "tick".
Having reluctantly had to decide that 29th March was the earliest date on

which, in the normal way, we could pay the increased pensions, I tried to discover how we could help the old people best during the winter months. I thought first of all about the 1,300,00 old people on National Assistance. It has been said that 500,000, or even 750,000 people—indeed, we are told that a report will soon be published putting the number at 1 million—do not apply for National Assistance although they could have it. We do not really know the number involved, but we know that 1,300,000 old people are in receipt of National Assistance today.
To help these—and in the main they are the poorest of the old people; the people who really need extra in the winter for food and fuel, for warmth both inside and outside—the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the National Assistance Board could use £6 million. We hope that these people will have a £4 bonus before Christmas. This bonus could be used to buy coal, although there is already an allowance for coal under National Assistance. This £4 can be used either for more coal or for more food over Christmas, or for warmer clothing. It will be a great help to them until 29th March.
There are other people on National Assistance who need help, also. I was worried about the widows, perhaps with small children, the deserted wives, perhaps with small children, and the chronic sick—what we call the non-ambulant sick. The National Assistance Board have looked at these categories. There are over 200,000 of these people on National Assistance, apart from the 1,300,000 old people who will get this £4 bonus. These people may not get it before Christmas, because, unlike the old people, many of them have to be sifted out.
That was my first attempt to help those who needed help most, although I always keep in mind the old people who, for one reason or another, will not apply for National Assistance when they could have it. I then turned my mind to other ways of helping the 6 million old people with retirement pensions. We were being urged to do something not only for them but also for our widows. It is important that they also should be helped if it is at all possible to do it. We undertook a great deal of investigation to try to find some method of helping them. Finally, we worked out a scheme of three double payments for the


retirement pensioners, and for the widows—a few other categories could have been included, but we concentrated mainly on those two.
Each of these three double payments would have cost about £25 million. That was a total cost of £75 million. We would have been doing just rough justice. A pensioner, perhaps with a dependant for whom an allowance had not yet been awarded, would still only have received double his existing pension. I give that one example to show that it would have been just rough justice which we would have been meting out to the retirement pensioners and the widows. The cost would have been about £75 million.
Apart from doing that, and knowing that the cost would be so great, with the help of the Postmaster-General and other Ministries, I considered whether we could, at some risk, bring forward the contributions to 1st February. I want to tell the Committee how the cost would have worked out. The cost would have been roughly £75 million. If we had been able to take the contribution increases hack to 1st February—and there was no absolute guarantee of that—we would have had about £41 million from contributions. The Exchequer would have had to pay its proportion, which would have been about £10 million, perhaps a little more. The remainder would have had to come from the National Insurance Fund.
To operate the scheme would not have been easy. It might have been a bit chaotic in its working. It might have caused great difficulties in the Post Office, particularly as we wanted to give one of the double payments before Christmas—both for those going to the Post Office and for the men and women behind the counter. But we felt that the public and the Post Office workers would be willing to put up with those difficulties.
These ideas were put to the Government for consideration. I have been asked this evening to "come clean". I have been trying not to hide anything at all, because I do not think that we have anything to be ashamed of. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) spoke indignantly about how strong the £ was when we came to office. What nonsense! No one except the right hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, some

others on his side of the Committee would ever believe that for a moment.
I would go further, and say that some of the difficulties that we as a nation have run into in these last few weeks can be put at the door of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends. They talk about loyalty—they just do not even begin to know what loyalty means. The speeches they have made have done grave damage to the country. It has been the firmness of this Government that has steadied the £.

Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Lady is casting discredit and disbelief on everything else she has said if she makes such throughly untrue statements. It was her own right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who referred to a failure of confidence over the last few days—10 days ago. And it is the fact that when the right hon. Lady's Government came to power—and it is to the credit of her Government—the £ was strong on foreign markets. But the lack of confidence in the £ is the fault of the Labour Government.

Miss Herbison: Again, I would say that only the right hon. Gentleman himself and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends would accept that statement. There is no doubt in the minds of those who understand these financial and economic matters that a great deal of discredit lies with right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
Let me now return to the stage that I and my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretaries, and others who were helping, had got to. This matter, then, was discussed last Tuesday morning, and by the time these proposals were ready—

Sir K. Joseph: What was last Tuesday morning?

Miss Herbison: If the right hon. Gentleman would just have a little patience, and show, perhaps, more sense of courtesy, he might get all the answers he is waiting for. As I said previously, we have nothing to hide on this matter.
By the time these proposals were ready, the financial situation had seriously deteriorated. They were discussed by the Government on Tuesday last week on the day after the rise in Bank Rate had had to be announced. That was the atmosphere under which they were discussed by the Government. I assure my


right hon. and hon. Friends and all who are worried about this that the Government had very regretfully to decide that they could not safely accept further heavy charges on the Exchequer in addition to the large increases already imposed by what I would call the bold measures of this Bill. I would add also that, at that stage—and we have to consider when the decision was made—the Government were most anxious to safeguard the value of the benefits that we shall pay under the Bill—around £300 million in all.
I want to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that all the members of the Government are as anxious as any back bencher to do good for our old people. All of us understand their hardships. Most of us live amongst them. Last weekend, when I was walking along my village streets, old people were coming to me and saying, "Peggy, if it could possibly have been done we know that you would have done it." I am sure that one could say the same thing of the Government as a whole.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for giving us the chance to discuss this matter and of showing clearly to the Committee and the country the two different kinds of reasons why we have been unable to help the old people at once.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — MANCHESTER (NEW TOWN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. George Rogers.]

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I welcome the opportunity tonight to speak of a subject which, in the years ahead, could be the means of immeasurably improving the lives of those citizens of Manchester and its environs who have, for far too long, been obliged to live in housing conditions which can only be described, putting the

best face on things, as deeply disquieting and unsatisfactory.
I should like first of all to refer to the general situation by saying that the Lancashire and Merseyside Industrial Development Association, in its report on development prospects and needs to the North-West Regional Study Group, stated that against the background of Manchester's growth as a provincial capital, its housing and urban renewal problem was one of the most serious in the country. I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will take the first opportunity, although I appreciate his many commitments, to travel north to Manchester to apprise himself of the problem at first hand.
If I may now move from the general to the particular, I would tell the House that a recent survey in the Openshaw constituency covering the Gibbon-street, Bradford, Kay-street, Openshaw, and Harlston-street, Openshaw, areas, indicated that of 492 houses inspected, 489 had sagging roofs, 492 had bulging walls, and 272 were homes which were denied adequate natural light and ventilation. Taking Manchester as a whole, the number of such houses still to be demolished as at 30th June, 1964, was 49,600. One may well ask what effect do these conditions have on the health of those obliged to live in them?
In this regard, I should like to refer to Dr. Metcalf Brown, the distinguished Medical Officer of Health for Manchester, who, in a report on an investigation into infant mortality in the city in 1961, stated:
Even under the best conditions of housing and maternal and medical care, the mortality from infectious diseases is high under the age of one year. It is not surprising, therefore, that infants condemned to live otherwise are not only more susceptible to infection, but also more likely to succumb.
This is the extent of a very moving human problem—the extent to which decent, industrious people have been obliged to live. The housing conditions here are an affront to human dignity, while successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government have obliged the city to tread what even the most prejudiced observer will agree has been a long, frustrating and weary road in its efforts to rehouse her people.
Perhaps I may be allowed to recall what, in fact, has happened consequent


to the announcement by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, that he was considering in November, 1951, the establishment of a new town for about 60,000 people at Congleton in Cheshire. In two short years, that mirage faded, and by March, 1953, the then Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, the former right hon. Member for Bromley, had decided not to proceed with his proposal, and the project was abandoned. However, in April of the same year, the city council, against its background of desperate need for housing sites, sought Ministerial authority to undertake development at Mobberley and Lymm. In October, 1954, the Minister, for one reason or another, rejected both these applications.
In January, 1955, there was a new Minister—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)— and an ageing problem. The new Minister said he quite appreciated Manchester's problem, and he decided to visit the city. In September, 1955, he visited Manchester, and certain overspill sites, including Lymm, and undertook to consider the problem.
Alas, before he could make up his mind, he had departed from the Ministry, to be followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), who made it clear that he was not prepared to give a decision but invited the Corporation to make application for any area or areas which it thought were appropriate. They took him at his word and resubmitted Lymm for which they had previously applied in 1953. The subsequent public inquiry rejected the application and this decision was later endorsed by the Minister. The corporation was then obliged to have recourse to the development of a multiplicity of small sites around the city—Hattersley, Marple, Handford, etc., etc., and so to Westhoughton.
On 31st July, 1963, the Manchester City Council made a compulsory purchase order in respect of the land at Westhoughton in Lancashire. There then ensued one of the most fiercely contested public inquiries of all time. We even had the remarkable situation where one reverend gentlemen held a service of divine intercession for his parishioners in order to keep Manchester's homeless at bay. Good

Samaritans are hard to come by in the field of housing. However, the reverend gentleman did not really need to rely solely on divine providence, for we now had yet another new Minister—the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who, despite any other faults he might have, could never be accused of rushing decisions. In fact, the city is still awaiting the decision on that inquiry.
Following renewed deputations and pressure, the new Minister conceded that the solution to the city's housing problem lay in the provision of a new town. Therefore, to meet Manchester's housing needs, which at 1st January, 1964, stood at 70,300, he made the momentous announcement on 16th June this year—four Ministers and 13 years after—that he proposed to designate an area east of Warrington as a new town to meet the housing needs of Manchester and its neighbours.
As I indicated in the House on that occasion, this location would make almost total the urbanisation of the whole of the South Lancashire area between Manchester and Liverpool. It is an area where 1,100 men have recently lost their jobs through redundancy. It is the area eloquently described in the following extract from the annual report of the Lancashire branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England.
The report says:
The scheme is far from an attractive one regarded solely from the point of view of those who will come to live at Risley because it is low lying and subject to frequent and persistent natural fog throughout the autumn months and being on the downwind side of large concentrations of industry and houses, including in the near future the Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, may well be subject to 'smog' as well. Other disadvantages are the scale and unsightliness of the wartime development which will cost so much to clear away and the fact that the surrounding district, whilst open farmland, is also flat and visually unimpressive. There are no hills and valleys as at Skelmersdale or riverside escarpment as at Runcorn. Many people will doubt that it can ever be made into an attractive and stimulating town to which the citizens of Manchester can be encouraged to settle and stay, especially at a time of almost full employment when it will have to compete with many more attractive places.
My only comment, if I may be forgiven for making it, is that for Manchester people it would be a move from industrial haze to autumnal fog in one bronchial move.
This was the area in which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) pointed out, all railway lines are due for closure. I am well aware that the former Minister of Transport made confusion worse confounded by stating after the announcement on Risley that, despite his decision to close the stations, he would leave the rail tracks down in case they might be needed. How Gilbertian can one get?
In the six months since the Risley announcement, even the most charitable could hardly claim that the Ministry has demonstrated any degree of urgency in its approach to the issue. The sum total of its efforts has been to carry out a land survey in the area, employing three men. I do not dispute that such a survey is essential, but why was it not carried out when Manchester Corporation gave its view on the site in January, 1963? Why did not the Minister proceed with the appointment of a chairman of the development corporation and the associated procedures if in fact he believed that Risley was acceptable?
For my part, I take the view that Risley might serve as an overspill development area. I would hesitate in endorsing entirely the suggestion that it be designated as a new town. I must stress to the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend that time is now the essence of the problem. Urgency has never been more urgent.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Many hon. Members from this side of of the House are from the Manchester and Salford area and we note, unfortunately, that there are no Members on the other side from that area or from Cheshire which we are speaking about tonight. The problem of Cheshire and the opposition that the Conservatives have consistently shown to a new town over 13 years, has been based purely on political considerations. Unfortunately the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) is not present—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a long intervention.

Mr. Morris: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I appreciate the interest demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)

and my hon. Friends that Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). If I may continue with the point I had in mind, may I turn to the question put by my hon. Friend about the Cheshire sites which have been the subject of examination in the past, the sites at Congleton, Lymm, Mobberley, plus Knutsford.
I support the view that the balance of advantage lies in favour of Lymm. It offers substantial attractions for new industry; the surroundings are suitable to agreeable development, and it lies near enough to Manchester to enable large numbers of people to travel to work to Manchester daily. In addition, it is sufficiently convenient for industry to move out to provide employment on the spot.
If, during the past 13 years of Conservative administration, successive Ministers of Housing and Local Government have seemed to be too susceptible to the political pressures exerted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the knights of the Cheshire countryside, I hope that the new Minister will appreciate that there are Members on this side here tonight who are equally determined that Manchester's homeless and the city's housing needs should receive the consideration, indeed social justice, which they have for so long been denied.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): No one could possibly question what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) said about the real hard and devoted work which Manchester City Corporation has put in in trying to find sites for its citizens who require rehousing. The hon. Member himself was for many years a distinguished member of the corporation, and he speaks with great authority about it. I have to take the situation as it is at the moment and there is no point in my going back over past history and trying to attribute any responsibility or censure. My right hon. Friend, I hope, will appear to my hon. Friend as an intervention of divine providence rather than the opposite. He is faced with the position of having to decide what he is to do now about Manchester's housing problem. I can give my hon. Friend


what I think is not cold comfort, but not perhaps terribly warm comfort, and that is that the immediate housing situation and the supplies of sites will keep up to Manchester's own estimates of what it requires. So until 1970 at least, on the sites that have been agreed, or, like Westhoughton, are in the last stages of consideration, Manchester should be able to reach its target of getting up to its 50,000 houses over the 10 years.
The trouble begins after 1970, when the figures begin to drop, and, as I understand it, by 1974 the drop will be something like 6,000 missing. That, of course, is a very serious matter because it will be a time when a good housing policy should be gathering momentum. These site shortages will become acute, and the question therefore is what is to be done in this interim period?
That is where we are faced with the fact that Risley has been provisionally selected as a possible new town. Even if everything goes well with Risley, and my right hon. Friend is hoping to make a statement at the beginning of the New Year about the soil investigations that have been made, if they are satisfactory it will be necessary to have consultations with the other Government Departments, like the Ministry of Agriculture, which is concerned with this. It will also be necessary to have consultations with the local authorities.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Manchester Corporation is opposed to the site at Risley, and would prefer, now that there is a new Government, that consideration should be given to Lymm and Congleton?

Mr. MacColl: Perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to develop what I am saying, because I am making clear what the problem is. It is not as easy as that. It is perfectly easy to scrub out Risley, but the difficulty is what does one put in its place? With the whole procedure on a new town which has been provisionally selected, there will not be houses going up in Risley or in any other new town in a similar position for another four years. It is a slow business to get a new town going.

Mr. Alfred Morris: As the hon. Gentleman may be aware. I wrote to his right hon. Friend rather more than a week ago

suggesting that he might consider visiting the City of Manchester to look at its housing problem at first hand. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give any indication that his right hon. Friend will visit the city? I might add that we are all very conscious of the extremely grave housing problem which he has inherited from his predecessors, but if the Parliamentary Secretary can give an indication that the Minister will be visiting the city it would be good news for all concerned.

Mr. McColl: My right hon. Friend is anxious to get round as many areas as he can. He feels very strongly that the best way of finding out what is going on is seeing and talking about these problems with the people on the ground. I am certain that as soon as he is free he will very gladly accept an invitation to see this particularly acute problem. I am not in a position to say what will be the result of the soil inquiries, but the two factors that are important about Risley are, first, that it would come into operation just when the sagging began in the sites and, therefore, the flow of houses would be brought up to the top. Secondly—and this is a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw—it is accessible to Manchester, and it is common ground that for the early stages of slum clearance it is important to have sites which are close to Manchester.
If Risley is rejected on the ground of its quality, or if it turns out to be unsuitable because of the result of these inquiries, it is easy enough for my right hon. Friend to withdraw from using it. The question arises, what are we going to put in its place? My right hon. Friend and the Department are already beginning discussions with the local authorities in Lancashire and Cheshire. These discussions are going on now with a view to finding alternative sites. I hope the Cheshire County Council will realise how acute the situation is and will recognise that something has got to be done in a constructive way to meet the needs of their fellow citizens in Manchester. I hope that if the case is put to them forcefully they will be co-operative. As I have said, those discussions about alternative sites are proceeding and I am not in a position at this stage to say what the result will be or what other


site will be found. That is the interim stage.
I want to say something about the further stage, because even if a new town comes into operation in the course of the next five years, that is only a first step. It is important that there should be other new towns coming along at a later stage to take the excess population from Manchester. I am on my best behaviour here. I am not anxious to impute responsibility for the present difficulties in the North-West—with which, as my hon. Friend knows, I am very well acquainted—but I think that what has gone wrong is due to the fact that these decisions were not taken 10 years ago. As a result, they have now got to be taken in a great hurry. We want a flow of new town sites becoming available so that when one new town is completed the teams employed by the corporations can move to the next. The work of finding a new town site should have been done years ago. We must not make the same mistake. We must prepare the ground for the future.
We are waiting for the North-West Study which we hope will be finished and available some time next year. As soon as that Study is available, intensive consideration will be given to the selection of other new town sites, possibly to the north and possibly to the south of the Mersey. These will not have to be quite so close to the big conurbations of South Lancashire as the first lot of new towns, because by that stage the back of the slum clearance programme will be broken. Then the problem will be the much more general one of settling people and finding new homes for them. The final stage will be finding further new town sites.
I know the feelings of my hon. Friends about Risley and I am not in any way implying that my right hon. Friend is in any sense committed to Risley. He is not. It may happen that technical considerations will decide this matter. In the end, it may be considered best not to go to Risley, but I emphasise that if this does happen it will be at a price. It must be remembered that that price may be going back to the beginning, with all the discussions and negotiations necessary under the new town procedure. That procedure is slow and in some ways it is

a good thing that it is slow, for it concerns the building of communities for all time. No one wants to start off a new town on the wrong foot, so time must be taken to ensure that we select the right place and build the right type of community in the right way. We must ensure that everyone is consulted.
From the point of view of doing something immediately to meet the vital needs of Manchester, there arises a question of balance. It is the balance between doing something speedily to help solve the immediate problems, and finding a longterm solution—the slow development of a properly balanced new town policy.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend would like to see the place for himself. I have been telling him about it and, while he paid a brief visit to Liverpool, I am certain that he would like to see that other city. I will not hold any balance between the two. Perhaps Widnes might be regarded as being between the two. I can assure my hon. Friends who are concerned about this that my right hon. Friend is acutely aware of these problems and is anxious to do what he can to be of assistance.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I thank my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for repling to the debate, which was initiated so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris). All hon. Members appreciate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's point about changing horses, as it were, from Risley to another site and how that would cause delay as a result of the procedure involved in the establishing of new towns.
It should be fully realised that the guilty parties are not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister but the previous Administration, who played about with this problem for 13 years and solved nothing. We should have had a new town years ago. Hon. Members opposite who represent Cheshire, and the Cheshire County Council, have been far from active in trying to find a suitable site for Manchester. Various towns have received small numbers of overspill families, but nothing concrete has been done to establish a new town and so settle this problem once and for all.
Unfortunately for too long there has been a desire to push any possible new town underground, so to speak—to get it out of sight because it would be comprised mainly of council houses. On the south side of Manchester, in the Lymm area, within easy reach of the city and the Trafford Park area, is one of the largest industrial conurbations in the North-West. This is an ideal site for future development and I hope that the Minister will weigh up the position between the establishment of a new town at Risley and either here or elsewhere.
If matters have not gone too far and if he can speed the machinery the other

way, I hope that he can switch the siting of a new town towards the south so that we may have a new town in Cheshire, where it is badly needed. The problem we face in Manchester and Salford is the colossal problem of housing. In my constituency, for example, only one house in three has—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes to One o'clock.